suno_generate_inspo

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that inspo draws stylistic inspiration rather than copying, and includes a copyright tip about avoiding well-known catalog recordings. It also states the return includes Task ID and generated audio info. This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though more details on auth or rate limits would be beneficial.

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 and well-structured: first paragraph defines the tool, second gives usage scenarios, third states returns. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. Front-loaded with the key distinction from covers.

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?

Considering the parameter count (7), full schema coverage, and presence of output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose, usage, and return values. It could mention error handling or generation duration, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's role and invocation.

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 each parameter is individually documented. The description adds overall context (e.g., the tip about audio_urls and copyright) but doesn't significantly enhance understanding of individual parameters beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does most of the work.

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 generates brand-new music inspired by 1-4 reference audios, distinguishing it from cover tools ('Unlike a cover, inspo does not reproduce the source tracks'). It specifies the action ('Generate brand-new music') and the resource ('inspired by reference audios'), effectively differentiating it from siblings like suno_cover_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?

The description provides explicit 'Use this when' bullet points: having reference tracks to riff on or wanting a new song 'in the style of' provided audio. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, the sibling tool list implies options like suno_cover_music or suno_generate_music, offering sufficient guidance.

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