suno_add_stem

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it only discloses that the operation is asynchronous via the polling hint. It says nothing about cost, whether the source audio is modified or a new asset is created, or what the task handle looks like, all of which matter for a generation call with 13 parameters.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the polling instruction. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness leaves the parameter surface entirely unexplained.

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 13-parameter async generation tool with zero annotation coverage, the description is far too thin; an output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the optional tuning parameters and cost/pricing implications are left completely unaddressed.

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 only 15%, so the description must compensate, and it barely does: 'selected instrument or voice stem' implies stem_type and 'existing audio' implies audio_id. The other eleven parameters (model, style, prompt, variety, max_mode, weirdness, audio_weight, callback_url, negative_tags, style_influence, title) get no mention at all.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: generate a chosen instrument or voice stem for an existing audio. That is clear enough to act on, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like suno_extract_stem, suno_stems_music, or suno_all_stems_music, which sound closely related.

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 'Poll suno_get_task' line gives the agent the follow-up workflow, which is genuinely useful. However, there is no guidance on when to pick this over suno_extract_stem or the all-stems variant, nor any stated prerequisites beyond needing an existing audio.

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