Export arrangement to .mid

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

The description discloses that the tool only writes a file and does not affect FL Studio state, which is important behavioral context beyond the annotations. Since annotations already indicate it is not read-only or destructive, the description adds value by clarifying the manual import requirement.

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 three sentences long, with the core purpose in the first sentence. It front-loads key information and adds essential warnings without unnecessary text. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, workflow, and limitations. Although the output schema is present (per context signals), the description does not detail return values. However, for an export tool, the behavior is sufficiently explained, and the schema likely provides return type.

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?

The input schema covers 75% of parameters with descriptions (e.g., pitch, start_bars, length_bars). The description reiterates that Claude generates the arrangement, but does not add new semantic details beyond the schema. Baseline score is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 that the tool writes a type-1 multi-track .mid file from an arrangement spec. The title 'Export arrangement to .mid' is precise, and the description distinguishes it from sibling tools like fl_write_piano_roll_notes by mentioning it bypasses note-bridge limits for multi-track export.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (for generating whole arrangements and exporting as MIDI) and what it does not do ('Does NOT touch FL: IMPORT the file yourself'). It provides context about the workflow and limitations, but does not explicitly name alternative tools for comparison.

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