suno_generate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that credits are charged immediately (~12 for V6), that a task_id is returned, that one task produces 2 takes, and that downstream polling handles two different result shapes. This is strong behavioral coverage, though it omits details like failure modes or rate limits.

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 three dense, purposeful sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main action, then provides cost, return value, a critical usage warning, and downstream integration guidance. Every clause earns its place.

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 13 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not complete enough. It explains the task_id and polling workflow, but an agent still lacks guidance on how to fill the many generation parameters, what combinations are valid, and what a successful response looks like beyond the task_id.

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 only 23%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not: it only mentions 'V6' as a model context, but does not clarify how to use prompt, style, title, personaId, customMode, audioWeight, or the other 13 parameters. Almost no parameter-level guidance is added beyond the schema.

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 tool's core purpose: 'Submit text-to-music (Suno)'. It names a specific verb (submit) and resource (text-to-music), and the context of Suno generation distinguishes it from siblings like suno_cover or suno_extend, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 useful usage context: it tells the agent that one task yields 2 takes, warns not to submit twice for options, and directs them to suno_poll/suno_wait for result parsing. This gives clear operational guidance, though it does not explicitly discuss when to prefer this tool over sibling generation tools.

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