build_nc_wedding_budgetAllocate a total wedding budget across eight categories using NC market-informed weights.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| style | No | ||
| guest_count | Yes | ||
| total_budget | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description only needs to add behavioral context. It adds that NC market-informed weights allocate across eight categories, but it does not disclose whether the output is dollar amounts, percentages, or a structured breakdown, nor how style or guest count affect results.
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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource with no filler or repetition of schema details. Every word contributes meaning.
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?
With no output schema and no per-parameter descriptions, the description leaves the eight categories unnamed, the role of guest_count and style unexplained, and the return shape unknown. It reads more like a title than a complete operational description.
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 0%, so the description needed to compensate. It only clarifies total_budget by saying a total wedding budget is allocated; it says nothing about guest_count or style, even though both are part of the input schema and likely influence the allocation.
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 uses the specific verb 'Allocate' and clearly identifies the resource: a total wedding budget across eight categories using NC market-informed weights. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on venue costs, vendors, licenses, and directory searches.
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 the tool is for whole-budget allocation, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools like estimate_nc_venue_cost. An agent must infer the intended scenario from the tool's name and title.
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 covers a distinct step: budgeting, venue cost estimation, vendor discovery and detail retrieval, marriage license lookup, and vendor contact. Even though search and get both involve vendors, one is for discovery while the other fetches a specific listing's details.
All tool names use a verb-first snake_case format and most include an NC wedding qualifier, such as build_nc_wedding_budget and search_nc_wedding_directory. The one exception, request_vendor_contact, still follows the same verb_noun pattern, so there is no meaningful convention break.
Six tools is a well-scoped size for a wedding planning guide. Each tool addresses a necessary planning action without unnecessary redundancy or expansion.
The toolset covers the core wedding planning workflow: budget creation, venue cost estimation, vendor discovery and detail retrieval, vendor contact, and marriage license rules. There are no obvious dead ends since search leads to get, and get leads to contact.