suno_generate_song

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses important behavioral traits: it opens/uses a browser, requires a Suno login, and runs directly on suno.com without third-party APIs. It also states that it returns clip IDs. However, it does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, or the asynchronous nature (implicitly handled by polling suggestion).

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 three short sentences, with the main purpose in the first sentence. Each sentence adds essential information: what the tool does, how it operates, and what to do with the output. No unnecessary words.

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 lacking annotations, the description covers the core functionality, operational context (browser login, direct suno.com), and return value (clip IDs). It also suggests the next step. It could mention limitations like song length or language, but is sufficient for selection and invocation.

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 already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters ('lyrics' and 'style'), including examples. The description only adds that it uses 'custom lyrics and style (Custom Mode)', which does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Given high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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's action ('Generate a song') and resource ('with custom lyrics and style'), explicitly naming 'Custom Mode'. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'suno_generate_from_description' which generates from a description rather than explicit lyrics and style.

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 clear context: it uses a browser with Suno login and runs through suno.com. It also tells the agent what to do next ('use suno_wait_for_songs to poll'). It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the 'Custom Mode' label implies an alternative (probably description mode).

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