add_samples

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior. It states that it 'Returns a task id, status, and output URLs,' which conveys the immediate outcome. However, it does not explain asynchronous behavior (e.g., that 'wait' can be set to false), cost implications, authentication requirements, or side effects beyond task creation. This is partial transparency but lacks depth.

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 sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the key action ('Create a Suno task'). It avoids redundancy and delivers the most critical information (purpose and return values) without wasted words. However, it is arguably too terse, missing elaboration that could improve clarity, but still earns a high score for efficiency.

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 tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is somewhat incomplete. It does not explain what 'add samples' entails, how the sample range parameters interact, or the meaning of callback_url and poll_interval_ms. While the schema covers some semantics, the description alone is insufficient for an agent to fully understand usage nuances, but it does cover the essential purpose and return type.

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 75%, which is high. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but the schema already documents most parameters, including meanings for start_seconds, end_seconds, wait, etc. The missing parameters (timeout_ms, poll_interval_ms) are not mentioned, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 'Create a Suno task on RunAPI (add samples)' and mentions returning a task id, status, and output URLs. This clearly identifies the tool's purpose (creating a Suno task specifically for adding samples) and differentiates it from siblings like 'create_mashup' or 'cover_audio' by specifying the sampling context, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other Suno task creation tools.

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 vs. alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or references to sibling tools. The only implication is via the parenthetical '(add samples)', but no explicit or implicit 'use when...' context is given.

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