Create a ZenSched org (step 1 of 2): sends a 6-digit verification code to the email. Unauthenticated; rate-limited. Then call account_signup_verify.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | |||
| org_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it sends a 6-digit code to the email, is unauthenticated, and is rate-limited. It also clarifies the two-step nature of the process. This gives the agent a clear picture of what happens when invoked.
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 concise sentences front-load the purpose, state the key behavioral constraints, and point to the next step. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant detail.
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 signup step, the description covers the essential context: auth status, rate limiting, verification code behavior, and the follow-up call. An output schema exists, so return-value explanations are not required. Minor missing detail is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.
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%, and the description only mentions 'email' as the recipient of the code. It does not explain the meaning or expected format of org_name or add semantics beyond the parameter names. With no schema descriptions, the tool definition should compensate but does not.
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 states a specific action ('Create a ZenSched org'), marks it as 'step 1 of 2', and identifies the distinct resource (org creation via email verification). It also names the subsequent sibling, account_signup_verify, making it easy to distinguish this from the rest of the signup flow.
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 gives clear context: this is for unauthenticated org creation and is rate-limited. It explicitly says to call account_signup_verify next, guiding workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., existing users should sign in), but the context is strong enough for correct selection.
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.