convert_audio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses 'Returns a task id, status, and output URLs' but does not reveal that this is an asynchronous long-running task — strongly implied by wait, timeout_ms, callback_url, and poll_interval_ms params — nor that it depends on a prior audio-generation task (source_task_id). These are significant behavioral traits an agent must know before calling.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste: purpose is front-loaded, operation tag and return info follow immediately. Appropriate length for the tool's complexity.

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 6 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should disclose the async task behavior, the prerequisite prior-task dependency, and what the output URLs point to. It covers the return values partially, but omits the asynchronous workflow (wait/callback/polling) and source-audio chaining that the parameter set implies. Meaningful gaps remain for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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 67% (4 of 6 params documented), which is mid-range. The description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever — it never mentions source_audio_id, wait, callback_url, or the source dependency. The two undocumented params (timeout_ms, poll_interval_ms) are left to be inferred from their names, and the description does not bridge that gap.

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 on RunAPI') with an operation tag 'convert audio' and describes return values (task id, status, output URLs). The purpose is clear at a high level, but it does not differentiate 'convert' from closely related audio siblings like remaster_audio, stitch_audio, or separate_audio_stems — what exactly the conversion targets (format? channels?) is left vague.

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?

Provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With 20 siblings, many of which also operate on audio (cover_audio, remaster_audio, stitch_audio, separate_audio_stems), the description never names an alternative or a condition for selection. Usage must be inferred entirely from the 'convert audio' parenthetical.

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