suno_login

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions OAuth and session persistence, which are useful, but fails to cover critical aspects like authentication requirements (e.g., 2FA handling), error conditions (e.g., invalid credentials), rate limits, or what 'Saves session' entails (e.g., duration, storage). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that handles sensitive credentials.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and includes a structured 'Args' section, but the formatting is inconsistent (e.g., mixing markdown-like elements with plain text). It could be more streamlined by integrating parameter details more seamlessly, and the second sentence about session saving, while useful, feels slightly tacked on.

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 (handling OAuth with credentials), no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but misses behavioral details like error handling or session management specifics. The output schema likely handles return values, so that gap is mitigated.

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 meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It specifies that 'email' and 'password' are for a Google account, provides an example format for email, and clarifies their purpose in the OAuth login process. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, though it doesn't detail constraints like password complexity.

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 action ('Login to Suno AI via Google OAuth') and resource ('Suno AI'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'suno_open_browser' or 'suno_get_status'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other potential authentication methods or tools, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 mentions that it 'Saves session for future use', which provides some context for when to use it (e.g., before other operations requiring authentication). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'suno_open_browser' or prerequisites (e.g., needing a Google account), and no exclusions are stated.

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