text_to_sound

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It tells the agent that a task is created and returns IDs and URLs, but it omits key asynchronous traits such as polling behavior, wait semantics, webhook notifications, or the fact that the returned task may be processed asynchronously. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate side effects or lifecycle behavior.

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 gets directly to the point and front-loads the core purpose. It contains no redundant or vague filler. While it is sparse, it avoids wasted words and is easy to process.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description should provide richer context about async behavior, return format, and operational details. It only states the basics: creates a task and returns some fields. This is incomplete for an asynchronous task creation tool with multiple undocumented parameters and no output schema to guide the agent.

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 descriptions already cover 80% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning. Two parameters timeout_ms and poll_interval_ms are left undocumented in the schema and description, but the high coverage leaves the core requirements clear enough.

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 a specific action: 'Create a Suno task on RunAPI (text to sound)' with an identifiable verb, resource, and scope. It also mentions the return value (task id, status, output URLs). However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling 'text_to_music' tool, so it is not fully differentiated.

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 like text_to_music, generate_lyrics, or blend_lyrics. There are no exclusion criteria, prerequisites, or contextual hints about appropriate use. The description simply states what the tool does, not when it should be chosen.

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