add_instrumental

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action ('Add instrumental backing') without clarifying whether it modifies existing files, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens to intermediate files. The text does not address destructive potential or side effects.

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 very concise (8 words) and front-loaded with the core action. It efficiently conveys the purpose without extraneous information. However, it could be slightly expanded to include key behavioral notes without losing conciseness, hence a 4 rather than 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?

Given no output schema and 9 parameters, the description is inadequate. There is no mention of return values, error handling, or what happens after submission (e.g., task_id, polling). The description does not explain the 'wait' parameter's important distinction between sync and async modes, which is critical for usage.

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 description coverage is 56%, meaning the schema provides partial descriptions. The tool description does not add any explanation beyond what is already in the schema. For instance, 'tags', 'wait', and 'model' are described in the schema but the tool description offers no further semantics. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate for the missing parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb 'Add' and resource 'instrumental backing' along with the context 'to uploaded vocal audio via Suno'. It clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like 'add_vocals' or 'cover_audio' by specifying the input (vocal audio) and output (instrumental backing).

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, constraints, or scenarios where other tools (e.g., 'generate_music' or 'cover_audio') would be more appropriate. No exclusions or context are provided.

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