extend_music

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool 'Returns a task id, status, and output URLs,' which hints at an asynchronous task-based behavior. However, it doesn't disclose mutation/side effects beyond 'create,' permission requirements, rate limits, or the fact that `wait` defaults to true and controls polling. This leaves agents guessing about the operational behavior.

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 sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is extremely concise with no filler, earning high marks for efficiency even though it sacrifices content.

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 (23 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the one-sentence description is insufficient. It mentions return values but fails to explain core usage patterns like specifying a source (task_id vs audio_id), the two parameter modes, or how this differs from sibling generation tools. The schema provides parameter semantics but not the overall context needed to select and invoke this tool 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 schema covers 91% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific detail; it neither clarifies parameter interactions nor highlights the required `parameter_mode` or the mutually exclusive source identifiers. The schema's own descriptions carry the weight, so no deduction is needed.

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 uses the verb 'Create' and specifies the resource as 'Suno task on RunAPI (extend music)', which clearly indicates the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like text_to_music or cover_audio. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'extend music' entails (e.g., extending an existing audio track), so it's not fully explicit.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as cover_audio or remaster_audio. It doesn't mention parameter_mode, the need to provide a source identifier, or any exclusions. This is a significant omission given the 23-parameter schema.

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