blend_lyrics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the task-lifecycle model on return: 'task id, status, and result payload.' However, it omits material traits an agent needs for a generation call: cost/credit implications, authentication requirements, whether the task consumes quota, and how errors or terminal failures surface. Useful but incomplete.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the return shape. Nothing is redundant, though the '(blend lyrics)' parenthetical duplicates the tool name and title information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the brief return-value sentence partially compensates, and the async task model is implied. But with six parameters, no annotations, and a sibling get_task that is the natural polling counterpart, the description should explain the wait/callback trade-off and terminal-status handling and does not.

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?

Six parameters with 67% schema coverage, and the description adds nothing about any of them. timeout_ms and poll_interval_ms are undocumented both in the schema and in the description, and the interaction between wait, poll_interval_ms, and callback_url is left entirely to inference.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: create a Suno task that blends lyrics, and names the operation '(blend lyrics)'. This distinguishes it from create_mashup and text_to_music, which operate on audio rather than lyric text, though it does not explicitly name those siblings. The purpose is clear without opening the schema.

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 gives no when-to-use condition, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the text whether to prefer this over create_mashup, generate_lyrics, or inspire_music, nor when to supply a callback_url versus relying on the default wait/poll behavior.

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