suno_upload_audio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; it does disclose that enhanced mode returns a task_id for suno_get_task and that enhanced audio IDs unlock Cover/Samples/Mashup. However, it leaves other behavioral details (standard-mode result shape, ownership/authorization checks, cost, failure behavior) to the schema rather than the description. This is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then mode guidance. Every sentence adds distinct information with no filler.

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 description covers the critical decision point (standard vs enhanced), the async task_id handoff, and downstream operation support. With a full input schema and an output schema available, the remaining unspecified details are minor; still, a brief note on specialized sibling tools would round it out.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds no per-parameter semantics beyond the schema. It reinforces the mode distinction but doesn't explain how mode relates to name, audio_url, or callback_url beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a precise action and object ('Upload external audio') and adds its purpose ('for use in subsequent operations'). It also calls out enhanced mode's downstream coverage of Cover, Samples, and Mashup, which separates this generic upload tool from more specialized sibling tools.

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?

Gives explicit routing between standard and enhanced modes and an explicit condition ('only when standard upload cannot process authorized audio'). It points the agent to suno_get_task for the async enhanced result. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling upload-specific tools such as suno_upload_extend or suno_upload_cover, so it loses the top score.

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