cover_audio

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions that the tool creates a task and returns outputs, implying an asynchronous operation, but it fails to disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it is idempotent. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that includes the core purpose. However, this brevity comes at the cost of essential details, making it under-specified for a tool with 18 parameters. It is well-structured but too sparse.

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 the tool's complexity (18 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain what 'cover audio' means in the context of RunAPI/Suno, fails to define any parameters, and omits return value structure. The agent cannot reliably invoke this tool without additional information.

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?

The input schema has very low description coverage (11%), yet the tool description adds no explanation for any of the 18 parameters. Key parameters like 'style', 'persona_id', 'audio_weight', and 'vocal_gender' remain unexplained beyond their names, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use them.

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 verb 'Create' and identifies the resource as a 'Suno task' for covering audio, and lists return values. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like text_to_music or create_mashup, leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as text_to_music, create_mashup, or extend_music. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints about appropriate use cases.

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