suno_upload_extend

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It states the operation's effect and that it returns a Task ID, which hints at asynchronous task execution, but it never explicitly says the result must be polled, whether the original upload is preserved, or that callback_url can be used for async notification. These are meaningful gaps for a generation tool.

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: lead purpose, sibling comparison, 'Use this when' bullets, and a Returns section. Minor redundancy ('your own music' and 'add new sections' appear more than once) keeps it from a 5.

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 6-parameter generation tool with no annotations, it covers purpose, when-to-use, the upload prerequisite, and return shape. It is missing an explicit async workflow/polling hint, but the output schema and sibling suno_get_task make the task ID route discoverable. Overall sufficient but not exhaustive.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces that audio_id must come from suno_upload_audio and that the operation adds sections, but it does not add detail about lyric, continue_at, model, style, or callback_url beyond what the schema already 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Extend an uploaded audio... with new AI-generated content.' It explicitly names the sibling it is not ('Similar to suno_extend_music but works with audio you uploaded via suno_upload_audio'), so an agent can distinguish it from the many generation tools.

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?

It provides a 'Use this when' list with two concrete conditions, and contrasts itself with suno_extend_music. The exclusion ('but works with audio you uploaded') tells the agent not to use it for non-uploaded/generated audio.

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