suno_upload_cover

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but lacks details on side effects, authentication, rate limits, or whether the operation is synchronous. It mentions returning a Task ID, which implies asynchrony, but does not explain polling or behavior.

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 structure: purpose, usage bullets, return value. It front-loads the main action and is efficient, though it could be slightly more compact.

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 complexity of 5 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and return value. However, it lacks details on asynchronous behavior, error handling, or how to use the returned Task ID, making it not fully complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the description adds marginal value beyond the schema. It restates that audio_id must come from suno_upload_audio, but does not provide deeper semantics for other parameters.

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 tool creates an AI cover of uploaded audio, distinguishing it from the sibling tool suno_cover_music by specifying it works with audio uploaded via suno_upload_audio.

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 bullet points on when to use the tool, such as uploading your own music and wanting a cover in a different style. It also mentions similarity to suno_cover_music, but does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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