create_mashup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of explaining behavior. It only reports that the tool returns a task id, status, and output URLs; it does not explain the asynchronous/task lifecycle, whether wait blocks, what callback_url does, or any side effects. This leaves notable behavioral uncertainty for an agent invoking the tool.

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 sentence, no fluff or repetition. It clearly names the operation, the resource, the target service, and the expected return shape, making every part earns its place. No distracting or redundant wording.

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?

This is a 17-parameter creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, so the description is too sparse to be fully complete. It conveys core join abstract and return shape, but omits important behavioral details such as wait/poll behavior, webhook usage, and how vocal_mode affects the creation. Parameter schema descriptions partially compensate, but overall description does not fill enough gaps.

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 88%, with detailed property descriptions like 'Two audio URLs to mashup' and one starting description of surgical_mode. The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema, so the schema contains the semantic work. The baseline of 3 applies here.

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 identifies the verb and resource: 'Create a Suno task on RunAPI' and explicitly labels it as 'create mashup'. It also states what is returned (task id, status, output URLs). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like blend_lyrics or text_to_music, though the resource type makes it fairly clear.

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?

The phrase 'create mashup' implies the intended use case, and the task-creation context suggests when to invoke it. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites, so usage guidance is only implied, not articulated.

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