suno_optimize_style

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the transformation nature (refining), input/output, and that it is a pre-generation step. It does not mention side effects, but the tool is non-destructive and the transparency is adequate. Could be improved by noting it doesn't generate music itself.

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, with a clear heading, short paragraphs, bullet points for usage, and a return section. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given the low complexity, 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. No missing information for an AI agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter 'prompt' having a descriptive title, description, and examples. The description adds context about refining the prompt but does not add parameter-level details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Optimize a music style description for better generation results' and explains that it takes a rough style and refines it into an optimized prompt. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like suno_generate_custom_music by being a preprocessing step, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 specific 'Use this when' bullet points covering vague style ideas, improving prompts for suno_generate_custom_music, and needing style terms. However, it does not include when-not-to-use or explicit alternatives, which would warrant a 5.

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