suno_generate_from_description

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It discloses that Suno writes lyrics automatically, which is a key behavior. However, it omits other traits such as rate limits, cost, or constraints on description length, limiting transparency.

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 two concise sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a critical behavioral note efficiently.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description does not mention return values or expected output. For a simple generation tool with one parameter, the description covers input but omits output expectations, leaving some incompleteness.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema. The schema's parameter description is nearly identical ('Describe the song; Suno writes lyrics automatically'). Although schema coverage is 0% by context, the schema itself provides adequate semantics, so the tool description's redundancy earns a baseline score of 3.

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 generates a song from a text description, explicitly naming it as 'Simple/Inspiration Mode' and noting that Suno writes lyrics automatically. This distinguishes it from sibling suno_generate_song, which likely offers more control.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like suno_generate_song. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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