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 burden. It explains the core behavior (re-generates a portion, keeps rest unchanged) and mentions return values. However, it does not disclose async behavior implied by callback_url, nor does it cover permissions or side effects.

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 well-structured with paragraphs and a bullet list, but it contains slight redundancy (e.g., 'Re-generates' reiterates the first sentence). It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 tool's complexity (7 params, 3 required) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the main purpose, usage contexts, and return type. However, it omits mention of the async nature of the operation, which is a notable gap.

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 tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema (e.g., section markers are already described in the lyric parameter).

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 verb 'replace' and the resource 'a specific time range in a song', and it distinguishes from sibling tools like suno_extend_music and suno_cover_music by focusing on section replacement.

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:' examples (fix sections, change lyrics, replace verse/chorus). However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' or direct alternatives, though the context of sibling tools implies them.

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