suno_generate_inspo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does usefully explain the underlying behavior (stylistic inspiration, not reproduction) and previews the response shape. However, it stays silent on asynchronous execution (the callback_url parameter implies task-based flow), credit/cost implications, and failure states, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether to call this tool.

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 organized into tight, labeled sections (what, use-when, returns) and every block earns its place. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary with a few near-repetitions ('brand-new' appears twice and the Returns block partially duplicates an existing output schema), but it is efficiently front-loaded with the core concept.

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 moderately complex 7-parameter generation tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, usage scenarios, the distinguishing behavior from covers, and return expectations. The main missing context is operational — the asynchronous nature of generation (despite a callback_url param) and selection guidance among the many sibling suno_* tools beyond cover, but the core call decision is adequately supported.

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 fully documents all 7 parameters, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds only marginal parameter context (echoes 'prompt', the 1-to-4 reference count, and the inspo use), and notably the copyright-rejection tip for audio_urls is left to the schema rather than the description.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb-plus-resource ('Generate brand-new music inspired by 1 to 4 reference audios') and immediately contrasts with covers ('Unlike a cover, inspo does not reproduce the source tracks'). This lets an agent distinguish it from suno_cover_music, suno_mashup_music, and suno_generate_music without opening schemas.

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?

A dedicated 'Use this when' section gives two concrete, actionable scenarios ('reference tracks whose vibe you want to riff on' and 'a new song in the style of some audio'). The cover contrast implies when NOT to use it, but no alternative tool is explicitly named for those cases, so the guidance is clear on the when but light on the when-not-with-alternatives.

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