Lost API key (step 1 of 2): sends a verification code to the org owner email. Then call account_recover_verify. Prefer account_signin_start if you only need to reconnect — Recover revokes ALL keys.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it sends a code to a specific email, is part of a two-step flow, and warns that recovery revokes ALL keys. The warning is correctly framed as a property of the recovery process, not necessarily of this immediate call, so it does not contradict destructiveHint=false. The openWorldHint=true annotation is consistent with the email-sending side effect.
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 deliver purpose, sequencing, an alternative, and a critical side-effect warning. Every clause earns its place, and the most identifying information ('Lost API key (step 1 of 2)') is front-loaded.
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 fully covers what an agent needs to decide whether to use this tool, how to invoke it, and what to do next. The output schema exists, so return-value details do not need to be in the description. The routing to account_recover_verify and account_signin_start closes the main contextual gaps.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does by clarifying that the email parameter should be the 'org owner email', not just any email. It could add detail about expected format or verification-code delivery, but for a single required parameter this is sufficient semantic guidance.
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 names a specific action ('sends a verification code') and a specific resource ('to the org owner email'), and explicitly distinguishes this tool from account_signin_start. The 'step 1 of 2' framing makes its role in the recovery flow unambiguous, so an agent can identify it without needing to inspect schemas.
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?
It provides explicit selection guidance: use this when the API key is lost and follow it with account_recover_verify. It also names the alternative (account_signin_start) and the condition that makes that alternative preferable ('if you only need to reconnect'). No inference is needed to decide when this tool applies.
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.
The account tools are distinct flow steps (start/verify for signup, signin, recover) plus a status check and key usage, so they're largely unambiguous. However, the two start/verify pairs could be confused, and feedback_submit/zensched_guide are unrelated to account management, though their purposes are clear from descriptions.
The majority follow an 'account_' prefix with verb_style suffixes (e.g., account_signin_start). feedback_submit and zensched_guide break the pattern, but they are distinct actions and the naming is still readable and predictable overall.
11 tools is a reasonable number for an authentication-focused server, but the server is supposed to be for scheduling. With 8 of 11 tools being account/auth, the count feels heavy on setup and light on actual domain operations.
The tool surface is almost entirely authentication and account management, with no tools for scheduling core resources like locations, workers, shifts, or timesheets—despite the guide mentioning these as the intended workflow. The server would be useless for actual scheduling tasks.