generate_mashup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic operation without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether it is destructive (e.g., overwriting), requires authentication, or has rate limits. The 'NEW' tag indicates novelty but adds no behavioral insight.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and immediately conveys the tool's core function.

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 complexity (8 parameters, 1 required) and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, async behavior (though wait parameter is described in schema), or how parameters interact. The description fails to provide a complete picture for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 75%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning only 'audioIds from previous generations' which is already in the schema. No additional context for other parameters like wait, model, or prompt.

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 'Mashup', the resource 'Suno tracks', and the output 'into one new track'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like generate_music or cover_audio by specifying it combines existing 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 provides a prerequisite ('Provide audioIds from previous generations') but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_music or cover_audio. It does not specify when not to use it or mention alternative tools.

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