suno_persona

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and does so well: it discloses the non-obvious re-call behavior (same taskId+audioId returns the same personaId and overwrites name+description) and warns to always send the full intended description. It also reveals the credit cost, a side-effect an agent could otherwise miss.

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?

Four sentences pack in the core definition, source requirement, credit cost, idempotency behavior, and a protective instruction with no filler. The critical warnings are front-loaded and every sentence 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?

For an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the required precondition, credit cost, and the most important side-effect (overwriting name+description). It does not explain the optional vocalStart/vocalEnd parameters or the response shape, but those gaps are minor next to the non-obvious re-call trap it exposes.

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 schema already supplies semantics for several parameters such as audioWeight, styleWeight, and weirdnessConstraint, and the description adds crucial context about the taskId+audioId identity pair and the load-bearing description field. However, with only 27% schema description coverage, vocalStart and vocalEnd remain underdocumented and the narrative only partially compensates.

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 states a specific action ('create a persona') and the required source ('a SUCCESSFUL task's take'), making its role in the Suno workflow unambiguous. It clearly separates persona creation from the generation and cover siblings in the tool list.

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?

It gives concrete invocation constraints: only use with successful tasks, and it explicitly warns that credits are consumed. It does not name alternative tools, but no sibling provides persona creation, so the context is sufficient for selection.

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