suno_adjust_speed

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

With no annotations, the description does disclose that the operation is asynchronous and returns a task ID requiring polling — the single most important behavioral fact. It omits whether the original asset is modified or a new one created, permission requirements, and how callback_url interacts with polling.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the core action comes first and the async polling note follows. Nothing wasted, nothing buried.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the polling behavior is covered. But for a 5-parameter mutation tool with zero annotations and thin schema coverage, the description leaves too much (callback behavior, audio_id expectations, whether output is a new asset) 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 coverage is only 20% (only title documented), so the description must compensate. 'Optionally preserving pitch' usefully explains keep_pitch, but speed_multiplier's 0.25–4 range, audio_id's role, and callback_url's semantics are left entirely to the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (adjust audio playback speed) plus a meaningful option (preserving pitch). It is clearly distinguishable from the generation-oriented siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with e.g. suno_remaster_music or suno_extend_music.

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 line 'Poll the returned task ID' gives a real procedural cue for async usage, but there is no guidance on when to choose this tool versus neighboring audio-transform tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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