suno_generate_music

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a task_id for async checking, which is useful, but it does not mention that generation is asynchronous, that it may take time, that it costs credits, or that it creates a remote resource. The description is thin for a generation tool with 15 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and model family, and the task_id handoff is a useful addition. No wasted words, though it could have used the space to explain async behavior or key parameter relationships.

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 complex generation tool with 15 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the async nature, the customMode vs non-customMode distinction, required fields in custom mode, or what the response contains beyond task_id. The sibling handoff is helpful but not sufficient.

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 40%, so the description should compensate. It does not explain any parameters beyond the model family and the task_id flow. The schema covers some fields (prompt, customMode, instrumental, style, title, duration), but many parameters (audioWeight, styleWeight, vocalGender, negativeTags, personaId, personaModel, weirdnessConstraint, callBackUrl) are undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds minimal value over the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('song or instrumental track using Kie.ai Suno V6, V6_MINI, or V6_WILD'), and it names the sibling tool for checking the returned task_id. It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling beyond the task_id handoff.

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 implies usage by saying the returned task_id can be checked with suno_get_task_status, which gives a follow-up workflow. However, it does not state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention that customMode requires style and title (that's only in the schema).

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