suno_extract_stem

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The only real disclosure is that two artifacts are returned and both should be kept; it says nothing about async behavior (callback_url), model selection effects, cost, or whether the source audio is modified or left intact.

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 short sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is a useful operating instruction rather than padding, though the terseness contributes to the under-specification elsewhere.

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 output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and "preserve both returned pairs" is a nice hint. But for a 5-parameter, no-annotation, job-style tool with 0% parameter documentation, the description is far too thin to let an agent invoke it confidently.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not: audio_id, model, audio_format, and callback_url are never mentioned. Only "selected stem" loosely maps to stem_type, and even the 12 enum values are left 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?

It states a verb ("Extract") and a resource ("a selected stem"), so the basic action is inferable. However, "its complementary remainder" and "Preserve both returned pairs" are unusual phrasings that leave the actual operation ambiguous, and nothing distinguishes this from nearby siblings like suno_extract_vocals, suno_stems_music, or suno_all_stems_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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. audio must already exist / be processed), and no mention of the alternative stem-extraction tools an agent must choose between. The agent must guess which of the several stem-related siblings to call.

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