export_notation_midi

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose a key behavior: keyswitch notes are excluded and notation output is separated from performance MIDI. Yet it does not clarify what the export produces, whether files are written, what the return payload is, or any side effects.

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?

The description is a single dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and immediately conveys the key scope distinction, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

For a one-parameter export tool, the description gives the essential semantic distinction, but it is incomplete in other respects. There is no output schema and no annotations, and the description does not state what the export returns, where it goes, or what 'separately' concretely means operationally.

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%, and the description does not mention project_id at all. The parameter is only understandable from its name and schema pattern, so the description adds no semantic value for parameters beyond what the schema already implies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it exports notation pitches while excluding keyswitch notes. It also distinguishes the export from plugin performance MIDI, which helps separate this tool from the sibling export_midi, though it does not name the sibling explicitly.

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 phrase 'separately from plugin performance MIDI' implies this tool is for notation-only exports and not for performance MIDI, giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over export_midi or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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