suno_create_voice

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden — and it handles this well by specifying hard input constraints (MP3/WAV, ≥10 seconds, single clear speaker, no background noise) and stating the output contract ('Persona ID that can be used with suno_generate_with_persona'). It does not cover failure modes or what happens when requirements are unmet, but for a persona-creation tool this is above-average disclosure.

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?

Well-structured and front-loaded with a one-line purpose statement, followed by requirement clarification, sibling differentiation, a use-case bullet list, and a Returns note. Every section earns its place with no filler; only slightly longer than strictly necessary given the schema already covers parameter syntax.

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 moderate-complexity tool (3 params, 1 required, output schema present), the description is thorough: it covers purpose, input requirements, the key sibling distinction (suno_create_persona vs suno_create_voice), appropriate use cases, and the returned value's downstream usage. The main ambiguity in a 35-tool sibling space is the persona-creation path, and that is fully resolved.

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% — the audio_url parameter's schema entry already carries the detailed constraints (format, duration, single-speaker requirement). The description echoes the audio requirements but adds little beyond the schema for name and description, which are self-explanatory optional fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the heavy lifting is correctly done by 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope ('Create a custom voice persona from an external audio URL') and immediately distinguishes itself from the closest sibling: 'This is different from suno_create_persona which creates a persona from a previously generated Suno audio.' This explicit differentiation against the most confusable sibling makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides an explicit 'Use this when:' bulleted list with three concrete scenarios, and implicitly states when NOT to use it by contrasting with suno_create_persona. It names the alternative tool directly and clarifies the external-vs-Suno-seed distinction, giving the agent clear decision guidance.

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