remaster_audio

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

The description mentions that it returns a task id, status, and output URLs, giving some insight into the outcome. However, it does not disclose async behavior, potential delays, error conditions, or side effects. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden but provides minimal behavioral detail.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It clearly conveys the purpose and primary output without fluff.

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?

For a relatively simple tool, the description covers the essential purpose and return values. It lacks details such as async behavior or error handling, but given the presence of parameters like 'wait' and 'timeout_ms', the absence of such context is a minor gap. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for basic understanding.

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 already describes several parameters (wait, model, audio_id, callback_url, source_task_id) with meaningful descriptions. The tool's description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, and the schema coverage is high (71%), so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it creates a Suno task for remastering audio, which distinguishes it from other audio generation tools like text_to_music or cover_audio. The verb 'Create' and resource 'Suno task' are specific.

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 versus alternatives. It only states what it does, without indicating use cases or conditions (e.g., when you have existing audio needing remastering). No explicit comparison with sibling tools.

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