text_to_music

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions returning a task id, status, and output URLs, implying asynchronous behavior but does not explain async details, polling, error handling, or side effects. The description is too minimal for a tool with 19 parameters.

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 efficient sentence, well-structured and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, leaving many aspects unexplained.

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 19 parameters, many with enums, no output schema, and few schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It omits parameter interactions, typical usage patterns, and error handling. The tool's complexity demands a more comprehensive description.

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?

Only 2 of 19 parameters have descriptions in the schema (11% coverage). The description does not explain the meaning or usage of any parameter. For example, 'style', 'lyrics', 'persona_id' are left undefined. The description adds no value beyond the schema's type declarations.

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). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'cover_audio' or 'extend_music' by focusing on text-to-music creation.

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 such as 'cover_audio' or 'generate_lyrics'. There are no mentions of prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate.

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