SunoMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output structure (section markers like [Verse], [Chorus]), the return values (title, status, formatted text), and formatting conventions Suno understands. Deducted one point for not mentioning idempotency, rate limits, or caching behavior.

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?

Perfectly structured with front-loaded purpose ('Generate song lyrics...'), followed by capability details, explicit usage bullets, and return value summary. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose; no redundancy or fluff despite having multiple paragraphs.

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 output schema exists, the description appropriately provides a high-level summary of returns rather than detailed field documentation. It explains domain-specific context (Suno's section marker syntax) that an agent wouldn't know from generic field names. Could mention error states or task tracking given the sibling tools include get_task operations.

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 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'text prompt' and 'description' referring to the prompt parameter but adds no syntax details or usage nuances beyond the excellent schema documentation. The model parameter is not mentioned in the description text.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('song lyrics'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by stating the output is 'ready to use with suno_generate_custom_music,' establishing this tool's role in the lyrics→music workflow versus the actual music generation tools.

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?

Contains an explicit 'Use this when:' section with three specific scenarios (avoiding writing lyrics yourself, specific themes/moods, needing structured section markers). It also clarifies the relationship to suno_generate_custom_music, guiding the agent on workflow sequencing.

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