Generate music (Suno V6, MiniMax Music 3.0)

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

Well beyond the supplied annotations, it discloses the credit cost model ('charged only when the track is ready'), per-provider credit amounts, expected render time (20-90 s, up to 3 min), the wait-then-poll contract with status "processing" and a taskId, the 7-day temporary URL, and the alternate download path via outputDir. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before spending credits.

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 front-loaded with purpose and cost, then provider tradeoffs, then timing/polling, then output — a logical order for an agent. It is dense with parentheticals, nested quotes, and backticks, so it reads more like a spec than prose, but nearly every clause carries decision-relevant information rather than filler.

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?

With eight parameters, no output schema, and a credit-spending mutation, this tool needs a lot of prose and gets it: return values, storage lifetime, polling path, and download option are all stated. There is no output schema to defer to, and the description still tells the agent exactly what a completed and an unfinished call look like.

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 coverage is 75%, so the baseline would be a 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: the prompt is the stylistic brief, durationSec is honored within 1-3 s for instrumentals but is only a hint on minimax, vocals without lyrics let Suno choose words and length, and waitSec matters because hosted connectors time out near a minute. Only filename and outputDir semantics remain thinly covered.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate an original music track from a text brief', then enumerates the brief's dimensions (genre, mood, instruments, BPM, use). This is clearly distinct from the sibling generation tools like vivid_generate_image and vivid_generate_video, and the named providers further pin down what kind of music output to expect.

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 real decision criteria: pick suno-v6 by default for two takes and exact-ish duration, or minimax-music-3.0 for higher-fidelity single take without length control. It also routes the agent to vivid_music_status when waitSec elapses. What it lacks is an explicit statement of when not to use this tool, or how it relates to non-music siblings such as vivid_generate_voice.

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