suno_track_extend

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool extends tracks but doesn't explain what 'extend' entails operationally (e.g., appends audio, modifies metadata), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens to the original track. The description is too minimal for a mutation 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 perfectly structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a bullet-point parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration. The formatting enhances readability.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), the description covers the basic purpose and parameters adequately. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context about what 'extend' means operationally and any side effects. The current description is minimal but not completely inadequate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all three parameters: track_id ('unique track identifier'), prompt ('description of how to continue'), and duration ('approximate extension length in seconds' with default). It adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema titles.

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 specific action ('Extend') and resource ('existing Suno AI track'), distinguishing it from siblings like suno_generate_track (create new) and suno_track_remix (modify differently). It uses precise terminology that directly communicates the tool's function.

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_track_remix or suno_generate_track. It mentions the tool extends 'an existing' track but doesn't clarify prerequisites, timing considerations, or exclusion criteria for different scenarios.

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