blend_lyrics

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It states that the tool returns a task id, status, and result payload, which implies an asynchronous task model, but it does not explain side effects, blocking behavior, error handling, or any prerequisites. The lack of detail gives an agent insufficient awareness of execution semantics.

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 with no fluff, front-loading the action and outcome. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices useful details for brevity; still, every word 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 a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It fails to explain the asynchronous nature, the purpose of wait/timeout/callback parameters, the structure of the result payload, or any constraints. Siblings like generate_lyrics likely have richer contracts, and this description leaves too much to inference.

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 67% (4 of 6 params have descriptions), so the baseline is moderate. The tool description itself says nothing about parameters, failing to clarify the two undocumented params (timeout_ms, poll_interval_ms) or how wait interacts with them. It adds no value beyond the schema, which is exactly the baseline scenario.

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 clearly states the action (create a Suno task) and the specific resource/operation (blend lyrics), which is distinct from siblings like generate_lyrics and create_mashup. The verb 'create' and parenthetical 'blend lyrics' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for blending two lyrics (via 'blend lyrics') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives like generate_lyrics or create_mashup. No exclusions or when-not conditions are given, so usage is only implied.

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