cover_audio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return payload shape: a task id, status, and output URLs. However, it does not explain that this likely runs asynchronously, that the 'wait' option controls polling, or that remote tasks may incur cost or produce partial results. These are meaningful behavioral gaps for an agent.

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 compact sentence followed by a short return-value note. Every phrase earns its place: it identifies the operation, the target service, the product area, and the primary return values. No redundant language or filler is present.

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 18 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, one sentence is not enough to make this tool fully navigable. The description lacks context about required fields, async behavior, optional callbacks, and how this relates to get_task or check_pricing. It is especially inadequate for an agent seeking to invoke a complex task-creation endpoint correctly.

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 high description coverage at 89%, so the heavy lifting is already done by the schema. The description itself adds little parameter-level meaning beyond indicating that this is a cover-audio task. A baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema is descriptive, but the description does not add extra context about required inputs such as upload_url and vocal_mode.

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 the core action clearly: 'Create a Suno task on RunAPI (cover audio).' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical identifies the cover-audio use case, which helps distinguish it from sibling music-generation tools. However, it could more explicitly describe that the tool works from an uploaded audio URL, so it does not fully differentiate itself from related task-creation tools.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as text_to_music, remaster_audio, or blend_lyrics. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternate-tool recommendations are provided. The description merely states what the tool does, not when it should be chosen.

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