suno_all_stems_music

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns a task ID and stem results with URLs, implying asynchronous behavior but not explicitly confirming it. It lacks details on rate limits, file size constraints, or whether the task is polled or callback-based.

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 concise: a one-line summary, an elaboration sentence, a bullet-point usage list, and a return statement. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clear and efficient.

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 tool has only two parameters (one required), an output schema exists, and sibling tools like 'suno_stems_music' are listed, the description covers the core purpose and usage well. It could improve by clarifying the asynchronous workflow (e.g., how to use the task ID) but is mostly complete.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning or usage tips for the parameters (audio_id, callback_url) beyond what the schema provides.

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 separates a song into all individual stems (vocals, bass, drums, other instruments), using a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'suno_stems_music' by noting it provides 'more granular stem separation'.

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 includes a 'Use this when' list with three specific scenarios (full multi-track separation, remixing, need for bass/drums/other tracks). However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'suno_stems_music' for simpler cases.

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