blend_lyrics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool creates a task and returns an id/status/result, but does not mention key behavioral traits like destructiveness (e.g., whether it modifies existing data), authentication requirements, rate limits, or effects on external systems. The async nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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, dense sentence that conveys the core action and return values. It is concise and front-loaded, but could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., separating purpose from output).

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?

The tool is complex (6 parameters, no output schema, task-based lifecycle). The description does not explain task polling behavior, the meaning of the result payload, or how parameters like 'wait' and 'callback_url' interact. For a tool of this complexity, the description is under-specified.

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 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what is in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does most of the work; the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters (timeout_ms, poll_interval_ms).

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 tool creates a Suno task to blend lyrics, with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('Suno task on RunAPI'). It also mentions the return values (task id, status, result payload). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_lyrics' or 'create_mashup', which may also involve lyrics tasks.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'generate_lyrics' or 'create_mashup'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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