suno_replace_section

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses that only the selected time range is re-generated and that output is either two full songs or two unmerged clips. However, it doesn't clarify that this is likely an asynchronous task requiring task polling, nor what happens when optional parameters like lyric or style are omitted, nor any failure/rate-limit 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 front-loaded with the core action, uses scannable bullets for usage guidance, and closes with a Returns line. At roughly 80 words, it is well-sized with no filler; each section either defines scope, usage, or output in a structured way.

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 an 8-parameter tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main behavior and output shape but omits important operational context: async workflow (polling get_task), constraints on section lengths, and defaults for omitted lyric/style. The output schema exists, so return field details aren't needed, but the async nature and edge-case behavior remain unclear.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value—'between the specified start and end times' reinforces the time parameters and 'two unmerged clips in candidates mode' restates replace_section_result_mode, but no genuinely new parameter meaning is introduced beyond 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 operation—'Replace a specific time range in a song with new generated content'—with a clear verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like extend, cover, and concat by explicitly emphasizing 'keeping the rest of the song unchanged.'

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 'Use this when' section lists concrete triggers (e.g., 'A specific section of a song needs improvement', 'You want to change lyrics in the middle of a song'), giving clear context for when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or negative cases, but the conditions are specific enough to guide selection among the many generation/editing siblings.

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