SunoMCP

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions 'Task ID' return, correctly implying async operation (consistent with callback_url parameter). However, lacks disclosure on processing time, idempotency, or whether original audio is modified vs. new resources created.

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?

Excellent structure with front-loaded purpose statement, followed by use-case bullets and return value specification. No wasted words; every sentence provides actionable guidance or behavioral context.

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?

Appropriate given tool complexity (2 params, async). Output schema exists, so brief return value mention in description is sufficient. Covers core functionality, use cases, and async nature. Minor gap on error handling or rate limiting.

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 coverage is 100% with complete descriptions for audio_id and callback_url. Description mentions 'audio' conceptually aligning with audio_id but adds no syntax details, format examples, or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 appropriate given schema completeness.

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?

Clear verb ('Separate') and resource ('song'/'audio') with specific scope ('individual stems: vocals and instruments'). Distinguishes general stem separation from generation or extension siblings, though could explicitly differentiate from 'suno_extract_vocals' which likely provides only vocals.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use this when:' section with three concrete scenarios (remixing, karaoke, mixing). Clear context for selection, though lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named alternatives like suno_extract_vocals.

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