Reconnect an existing org without rotating keys (step 2 of 2): verify the emailed code. Call this after account_signin_start. If later org tools fail, call account_signin_verify again or account_use_key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | ||
| Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only supply readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint; the description adds useful behavioral context: this step does not rotate keys, it verifies an emailed code, and it can be retried. It does not contradict annotations.
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 compact sentences front-load the core purpose, then add sequencing and fallback guidance without wasted words. Every clause contributes to correct tool selection and invocation.
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 two-parameter verification step with an output schema provided, the description covers the workflow position, retry behavior, and alternative tool. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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%, but the description partially compensates by indicating the code is emailed and the flow reconnects an existing org. However, it does not explicitly name or explain the email and code parameters beyond what the schema titles themselves imply.
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 specific action ('verify the emailed code'), a clear resource ('an existing org'), and positions it as step 2 of 2 in a reconnect flow. It also distinguishes itself from account_signin_start and account_use_key by naming the workflow step and alternatives.
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?
Explicitly says to call after account_signin_start, and provides fallback guidance ('call account_signin_verify again or account_use_key') if later org tools fail. This gives the agent concrete sequencing and alternative-routing instructions.
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.