extend_music

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only gives a brief behavioral hint (requires audioId). It does not disclose important traits like processing time, error handling, or whether the original track is modified. The schema parameters like wait and max_wait_seconds imply async behavior but are not explained in the description.

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, front-loading the core purpose and essential prerequisite. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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?

For a complex tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return value (task ID?), the async workflow, or how to proceed after submission. The agent would need to infer behavior from sibling tool names like check_task.

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 73%, and the description adds value by linking audioId to generate_music. However, it does not enhance understanding of other parameters like continueAt or style beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline is met but not exceeded.

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 verb 'extend/continue' and the resource 'existing Suno track', and specifies the prerequisite 'audioId from a previous generate_music task'. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like generate_music which creates new tracks.

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 the prerequisite of needing an audioId from generate_music, but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cover_audio or add_instrumental. No explicit 'when-not-to-use' or alternative naming is given.

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