suno_cover_music

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states it generates a new version and returns task ID and audio info, but does not disclose whether the operation is synchronous or asynchronous, or any potential side effects (e.g., cost). The callback_url parameter implies async but not clarified.

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, with a clear opening statement, bulleted usage list, and a return values line. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though the 'Returns' section could be slightly more detailed.

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 6 parameters (all documented in schema) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for use. It covers purpose and usage conditions, though the return description is minimal.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter explanations beyond what the schema already provides. No new meaning is added for parameters like audio_weight or callback_url.

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 tool creates a cover or remix version of an existing song in a different style, specifying that core melody and lyrics are kept. It distinguishes from siblings like suno_remaster_music by emphasizing style change.

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 'Use this when' section provides specific scenarios (different genre, acoustic/unplugged, remix) that clearly guide usage. However, it does not explicitly exclude other cases or mention alternatives, so it slightly misses top score.

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