add_guestsAdd guests to a project (deduped by name+email). Provide the projectKey from create_wedding_project and a list of guests.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| guests | Yes | Guests to add | |
| projectKey | Yes | The projectKey returned by create_wedding_project |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It mentions deduplication by name+email but does not disclose behavior on duplicates (skip, overwrite, or error), nor does it mention rate limits, auth requirements, or return value structure.
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 essential action and key behavior. No redundant or unnecessary text.
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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic action and dedup behavior. However, it lacks details on error handling, duplicate resolution, and transactional behavior, which would be helpful for an 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context that projectKey comes from create_wedding_project, but this is minimal added value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 action 'Add guests' to a project, specifies the deduplication key (name+email), and references the sibling tool 'create_wedding_project' for the projectKey, distinguishing it from other 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?
The description tells the agent to provide the projectKey from create_wedding_project and a list of guests, setting context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives for updating or removing guests.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct action: adding guests, creating project, generating seating, getting summary, listing culture packs, or listing tools. No overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., add_guests, create_wedding_project, list_tools). No deviations.
6 tools is well-scoped for a wedding planning assistant, covering core operations without being excessive or insufficient.
Covers main workflow (create project, add guests, generate seating, view summary) but lacks update/delete for guests or manual seating adjustments. Minor gaps.