text_to_music

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions returns (task id, status, output URLs) but omits critical details: that tasks may be asynchronous (implied by the 'wait' parameter), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what a terminal status means. The description fails to compensate for missing annotations.

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 concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core action. However, it is overly terse, missing essential context that could be added without making it overly verbose. It earns its keep but could be more informative while remaining concise.

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?

The tool has 20 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not explain required parameters, behavior, or typical task lifecycle. For such complexity, the description is far from complete. An agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional information.

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 only 10%, and the description adds zero explanation for parameters. The required 'vocal_mode' and 19 optional parameters have no semantic context. Given the low schema coverage, the description must compensate but provides no param details, severely hindering correct invocation.

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 the tool creates a Suno task for text-to-music generation and specifies the return values (task id, status, output URLs). This provides a specific verb+resource identification. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'generate_lyrics' or 'extend_music', but the name and context imply the core 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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like 'extend_music' or 'cover_audio' could be confused, but no exclusions or preferred scenarios are mentioned. The description only states what the tool does, leaving usage decisions entirely to the agent.

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