suno_all_stems_music

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

The description discloses the return structure (Task ID and results with URLs) but does not clarify whether the operation is synchronous or asynchronous, or any prerequisites (e.g., audio format). Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden but only partially covers behavioral traits.

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 (four short paragraphs) and well-structured with clear sections: action statement, comparison, usage scenarios, and return info. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, usage guidance, and return values. It distinguishes from a sibling tool. However, given the complexity of audio processing, it could mention supported formats or file size limits to be fully self-contained. Still, it is largely complete for an agent.

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?

The input schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (audio_id and callback_url). The description adds context about the overall function but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Separate a song into all individual stems') and explicitly lists the components (vocals, bass, drums, other instruments). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'suno_stems_music' by noting it provides more granular 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' section with three specific scenarios, making it easy for an agent to determine when to invoke this tool. It implicitly contrasts with the less granular 'suno_stems_music' by stating it provides more granular separation.

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