Create a ZenSched org (step 2 of 2): verify the emailed code. Returns org_id and your zsc_ API key (shown once). Claude.ai must then Connect → Sign in with the same email — do not keep calling org tools until Connect succeeds.
| 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?
The annotations are all false, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the API key is shown only once, that the tool is part of org creation, and that external Connect action is required. This is valuable context, though it does not mention failure modes (e.g., wrong code) or idempotency. Since it covers the key behavioral quirks without contradicting annotations, a 4 is appropriate.
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, zero fluff. The first sentence packs purpose, step, and return value; the second delivers a crucial workflow warning. The most important usage guidance is placed at the end but is clearly emphasized. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, external dependency), the description covers the call sequence, parameter meaning, return values (org_id and API key), and the mandatory next step. The presence of an output schema means return details need not be fully spelled out. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.
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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. 'Verify the emailed code' unambiguously identifies the code parameter and implies email is the address that received it. It does not specify that the email must match the one used in step 1, but that is reasonably inferable from the flow. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, earning a 4.
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 (verify the emailed code), the resource (ZenSched org creation) and marks it as step 2 of 2, clearly differentiating it from the sibling account_signup_start and sign-in tools. It also names the returned values (org_id and API key), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool accomplishes.
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 explicitly places the tool in a two-step flow ('step 2 of 2') and gives a critical post-condition: 'Claude.ai must then Connect → Sign in with the same email — do not keep calling org tools until Connect succeeds.' This tells the agent exactly when it should be used, what must follow, and what to avoid, effectively routing the workflow away from siblings like account_signin_verify.
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.