generate_seatingAuto-generate a reception seating plan: creates round tables and seats every guest with the constraint-aware solver (keeps must-sit-together groups together). Returns how many were seated and a link to the visual editor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tables | No | Number of tables; omit to size automatically | |
| projectKey | Yes | The projectKey returned by create_wedding_project | |
| seatsPerTable | No | Seats per table (default 8) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description mentions creation and constraint-aware solver but omits side effects (e.g., overwriting existing seating, idempotency, authorization needs).
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 with no fluff, front-loaded with core functionality and output summary.
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?
Covers main purpose, algorithm, and output, but lacks details on error handling, constraint violations, and whether previous seating is replaced, given no output schema or annotations.
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%, baseline 3; description adds minimal value beyond schema (auto-sizing hint for tables), but does not significantly deepen understanding.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'auto-generate' and resource 'reception seating plan', clearly distinguishing from siblings like add_guests and create_wedding_project.
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?
Description implies usage after project creation via projectKey parameter reference, but lacks explicit when-to-use or alternatives guidance.
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.