suno_upload_extend

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

Discloses that the operation costs credits, returns a task_id, and requires the model to match the source version. However, with no annotations, it fails to state that this is a write/mutation operation, that it is asynchronous, or any failure/side-effect behavior.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then specific requirements. No redundancy; every sentence adds necessary detail.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete: it omits async behavior, error handling, full parameter semantics, and explicit guidance on how to poll the returned task_id (e.g., via suno_tasks).

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all 9 parameters. It explains continueAt constraints and defaultParamFlag mode combinations, but leaves vocalGender, model, style, title, instrumental, and uploadUrl essentially unexplained beyond their raw schema types.

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 verb ('extend') and resource ('uploaded audio'), and the phrase 'upload-extend' differentiates it from sibling tools like suno_extend. The scope is unambiguous and immediately clear.

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?

No mention of when to use this tool vs alternatives like suno_extend or suno_upload. The description only explains internal modes via defaultParamFlag, not selection criteria or exclusions.

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