stitch_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a task is created and returns task id/status/output URLs, but it does not disclose async behavior, the wait default, terminal statuses, side effects, or permission requirements. This is insufficient for a task-creation 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?

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the key return values. There is no filler or redundant information.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-sentence description leaves major gaps: no usage context, no task lifecycle details, no clarification of wait/polling behavior, and no explanation of the output URL semantics. It is minimally viable but far from complete for an agent to use it 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 already describes 5 of 7 parameters (71% coverage), and the description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the tool's purpose. The undocumented timeout_ms and poll_interval_ms are not explained, and the description does not clarify how source_task_id and audio_id relate to the stitching operation, so the description provides minimal added value.

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 a specific verb ('Create a Suno task') with a resource ('RunAPI (stitch audio)') and states return values (task id, status, output URLs), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like cover_audio or remaster_audio. However, it does not explain what 'stitch audio' actually entails beyond the operation name.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_mashup or extend_music, and no prerequisites are mentioned (e.g., needing a completed source_task_id). The only usage context is the tool name, so an agent cannot confidently decide between this and sibling audio tools.

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