generate_voice

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'synchronous' and that it returns an operation result, but does not state side effects (e.g., mutation, cost), authentication requirements, or what the operation result contains. For a tool that likely generates a cloned voice, this is a significant omission.

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, which is appropriately brief, but it does not front-load the core action clearly. It prioritizes 'synchronous Suno operation' over the actual purpose, making it less useful despite being short. It is under-specified rather than concisely informative.

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 no output schema, the description should explain the return value in detail, but it only says 'Returns the operation result' without specifying the format or content. It also lacks information about required setup, errors, or rate limits. For a two-parameter tool, this is insufficient to guide correct invocation.

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 100%, so both parameters already have clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional context about parameter usage, format, or relationships. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the load and the description does not interfere.

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 a verb 'Run' and a resource 'Suno operation' but is vague about what 'generate voice' entails. It does not explicitly say this tool clones a voice from an audio URL, which the schema implies. Among many sibling audio tools, it does not differentiate itself beyond the parenthetical 'generate voice', leaving ambiguity about its exact function.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like text_to_music or cover_audio. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or conditions under which this tool is appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the vague description.

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