replace_section

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 only states the basic operation ('replace a time range') without revealing side effects (e.g., whether the original track is modified, whether replacement is permanent, or any authentication or rate-limit considerations).

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, well-formed sentence that front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be slightly restructured to mention key parameters or usage notes without adding verbosity, so it earns a 4 rather than a 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 the complexity of the tool (13 parameters, 5 required, no output schema, no annotations), the one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error states, or how the replacement process works (e.g., whether the rest of the track is preserved).

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 no additional meaning beyond the input schema. While schema description coverage is 69%, meaning some parameters are partly documented in the schema, the tool description itself does not explain the purpose or relationships of the parameters (e.g., how 'infillStartS' and 'infillEndS' define the target range).

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 ('Replace'), names the resource ('a time range in a Suno track'), and specifies the action ('with new AI-generated content'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'extend_music' or 'cover_audio' which modify the full track or add sections rather than replace a segment.

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, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. For example, it does not mention that the original track must exist or that replacement may require specific credits.

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