suno_generate_lyrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that lyrics include section markers and are formatted for Suno's music generation, and mentions output fields (title, status, formatted text). However, it omits behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or cost implications, which are important for a generation 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 approximately 100 words, front-loaded with the key action, followed by usage bullets and output summary. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool has only 2 parameters, and the description covers purpose, usage scenarios, and output format. Given the existence of an output schema (not shown), it appropriately defers return value details. However, it lacks information on potential errors or limits, preventing a full 5.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra semantic value beyond the schema, just confirming that the prompt is a description and that 'default' is recommended for the model parameter. It does not clarify parameter constraints or format requirements.

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 it generates song lyrics from a text prompt with structured sections like Verse and Chorus. It differentiates from sibling tools by mentioning integration with suno_generate_custom_music, but does not explicitly contrast with other lyrics-related tools like suno_mashup_lyrics, hence not a full 5.

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 three bullet-point use cases ('Use this when:') covering common scenarios. However, it lacks guidance on when NOT to use this tool (e.g., if you already have lyrics or need to mashup) and does not compare against alternative sibling tools, limiting its decision-making utility.

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