suno_generate_with_custom_model

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does disclose important behavior: the initial response is an async task, polling is required, and the operation 'never falls back to another model.' This goes beyond the schema, though the awkward 'only accepts the async task' phrasing slightly obscures the intended meaning.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states purpose, and the second provides essential async behavior. The phrasing 'only accepts the async task' is slightly confusing but the overall structure is efficient and relevant.

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 description gives the core workflow—generate, poll, no fallback—but does not specify how polling should be performed or which sibling tool to use for polling. Since an output schema exists and all parameters are documented, this is adequate but has clear gaps in operational completeness.

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 does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the input schema already documents; the schema already defines id, title, lyric, and style clearly.

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 operation: 'Generate a song using a ready custom music model.' The phrase 'ready custom music model' distinguishes this from persona-based or generic generation, but it does not explicitly differentiate from similarly named siblings like suno_generate_custom_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 implies the tool should be used when a ready custom music model exists, and the async behavior is stated. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer selection among the many generation siblings.

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