suno_replace_section

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It notes that the tool 'keeps the rest of the song unchanged' and returns a Task ID, implying asynchronous behavior. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, required permissions, or rate limits. The behavioral detail is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 front-loaded with a clear summary, followed by usage scenarios in a bullet list, then mentions returns. Every sentence is informative and there is no wasted text.

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?

With 7 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description provides a good overview of purpose and usage. It mentions return value (Task ID and audio info) but does not detail the output schema. For a tool with many sibling tools, the description is sufficiently complete to guide selection.

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 already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., 'New lyrics for the replaced section. Use section markers like [Verse], [Chorus]' is already in the schema). Baseline score of 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 'Replace a specific time range in a song with new generated content,' using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like suno_extend_music (adds to end) and suno_overpainting/underpainting (different operations).

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 listing three specific scenarios (fixing sections, changing lyrics, replacing verse/chorus), which gives clear guidance on when to use the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the scenarios are sufficient for most cases.

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