Authenticate this connector with an existing zsc_ API key. Prefer this when the key is already in the conversation. If the connector shows Connected but org tools fail, call this or account_signin_start — do not look for a Connect button.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation safety profile is defined. The description adds useful context about when the tool is needed, such as the 'Connected but org tools fail' scenario, but it does not disclose details like whether the API key is stored, overwritten, or how success/failure is surfaced. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
Three sentences, no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence adds distinct usage guidance. 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 low complexity (one parameter, output schema present, basic annotations), the description covers the essential invocation context: what to authenticate with, when to prefer it, and when to use an alternative. It could go slightly deeper on what happens after authentication, but nothing critical is missing for selecting and invoking the tool.
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% and the schema only provides the bare title 'Api Key.' The description compensates by specifying the key type ('existing zsc_ API key') and the context ('already in the conversation'), which adds real meaning to the parameter. For a single simple string parameter, this is sufficient.
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?
Description starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Authenticate this connector with an existing zsc_ API key.' It clearly identifies the tool's action and object, and distinguishes it from account_signin_start by the condition 'when the key is already in the conversation.' This is precise and differentiated from its siblings.
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 gives explicit usage context: 'Prefer this when the key is already in the conversation.' It also provides a troubleshooting trigger ('Connected but org tools fail') and names an alternative ('call this or account_signin_start'), plus a clear exclusion ('do not look for a Connect button'). This is strong, actionable guidance.
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.