boost_style

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the operation is synchronous and that it 'returns the operation result,' which is useful. However, it omits auth requirements (a login sibling exists), failure behavior, rate limits, and whether this is a safe read or a mutating paid call (check_pricing sibling suggests cost implications). The jargon 'boost style' is never unpacked.

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?

One tight sentence with no filler. The synchronous behavior and return value are front-loaded. Minor deduction for the parenthetical 'boost style,' which is cryptic and could have been replaced with plain language, but overall it's an efficient definition.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the operation result looks like and when the tool is used in a workflow. It only says 'returns the operation result' without any format or usage context. For a single-parameter tool this is passable but leaves the agent guessing about the meaning of 'boost style' and the shape of the return value.

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 100% — the schema already documents 'description' as 'Style description to expand into genre tags.' The tool description adds essentially nothing about the parameter beyond the parenthetical 'boost style,' so it lands at the baseline 3 for fully-covered schemas.

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 a verb (run) and resource (Suno operation on RunAPI), but 'boost style' is unexplained jargon. The schema parameter clarifies it expands style descriptions into genre tags, giving the purpose some grounding. However, it fails to distinguish itself from the many sibling music/audio tools — 'boost style' doesn't convey what outcome the agent should 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the 20 siblings. There's no mention of when boost_style is appropriate (e.g., after generating a style, before text_to_music), no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent has no way to route to this tool over inspire_music or generate_persona.

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