export_midi

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool writes a file and clarifies what is excluded, but it does not mention side effects, whether the file is saved or returned, or any other operational details. This is a partial disclosure, sufficient for a simple export but not comprehensive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The core action is stated first, followed by a critical exclusion. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is still incomplete. It does not mention how the file is delivered (download, saved path), whether it exports the entire project or a selection, or any limitations of the MIDI type 1 format. Sibling tools like export_notation_midi and midi_inspect suggest more context is needed for an agent to choose correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The only parameter, project_id, is not explained beyond its name. The description does not explicitly state that project_id identifies the project to export, leaving the agent to infer it. This is a gap given the schema provides no descriptive help.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool writes a Standard MIDI File type 1, specifying the content (notes, tempo, meter) and explicitly excluding plugin sounds/effects. This is a specific verb-resource pairing that differentiates it from export_project (which would include audio/effects) and export_notation_midi (which focuses on notation).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description hints at usage by stating plugin sounds/effects are not included, implying this is for MIDI data only. However, it does not name alternatives like export_project or export_notation_midi, nor does it give explicit conditions for when to prefer this tool over them. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.