suno_replace_section

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 useful behavior: the operation leaves the rest of the song unchanged, and it describes the return shape (Task ID plus two complete songs or two unmerged clips). However, for a mutation tool it does not address auth/permission needs, reversibility, or whether the task runs asynchronously by default (only hinted at via callback_url).

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?

Well-structured and front-loaded: the core purpose opens the description, followed by behavior, a scoped use-case list, and a returns note. The 'Use this when' bullets and Returns section each earn their place; it is slightly verbose but nothing is redundant 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?

For a complex 8-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers the primary purpose and return shape adequately. Gaps remain: it does not clarify how the tool differs from similarly named siblings (suno_overpainting, suno_underpainting), does not address minimum section lengths or timing constraints, and does not explain the default asynchronous execution model despite the callback_url parameter.

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%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents all 8 parameters. The description adds minimal parameter-level insight; its only slight addition is clarifying the two result modes (full_song vs candidates) in the Returns section, which mirrors the enum. It does not explain time-format conventions or lyric marker usage beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Replace a specific time range in a song with new generated content') and explains the core behavior (re-generating a portion while keeping the rest unchanged). Clear and actionable, but it does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling like suno_overpainting or suno_underpainting, which appear to be similar section-editing tools, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Provides an explicit 'Use this when' list with three concrete scenarios (improving a section, changing lyrics mid-song, replacing a verse/chorus). This gives clear context for when to call the tool, though it lacks a 'do not use when' clause or named alternatives, which would fully close the loop.

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