Reconnect an existing org without rotating keys (step 1 of 2): emails a 6-digit code to the owner. Then account_signin_verify. Prefer this over Recover.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so mutation is expected. The description usefully adds the side-effect nature (emails a code), the 6-digit format, and that keys are not rotated. This is meaningful beyond the annotations, though it does not discuss expiry or resend behavior.
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 short sentences pack purpose, workflow step, next sibling, and alternative preference with no filler. Every clause earns its place, and the most important action 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?
For a simple one-parameter start-step with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential workflow, the sibling to follow, and the side effect. It is slightly terse regarding what 'Recover' refers to exactly, but the sibling list makes that resolvable.
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?
The schema only lists 'email' as a string with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by specifying that the email belongs to the org owner and is the address receiving the code. It adds enough semantic meaning for the single required parameter.
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 clear action: it is step 1 of 2 for reconnecting an existing org, and it emails a 6-digit code to the owner. It also differentiates itself from account_signin_verify by explicitly pointing to the next step, and from the recover flow by saying 'Prefer this over Recover.'
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 explicit when-to-use context ('Reconnect an existing org without rotating keys'), sequence context ('Then account_signin_verify'), and an explicit preference against the alternate recover flow. This is strong routing guidance for an agent.
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 flows are mostly distinguishable: create, signup, signin, recover, and use_key have distinct purposes, and the descriptions include helpful preference guidance. The start/verify pairs and the similar signup/signin names create minor ambiguity, but descriptions resolve it.
Most tools follow a snake_case account_<action> pattern with clear start/verify pairs, and feedback_submit fits the verb_noun style. The naming is slightly inconsistent because zensched_guide is a bare noun and account_auth_status is not structured like the other action-oriented tools.
Eleven tools is within a reasonable range, and the multiple account tools each correspond to a distinct authentication flow. The count is slightly heavy on account management relative to the apparent scheduling domain, but no tool feels redundant.
The guide explicitly mentions fund, locations, workers, shifts, and timesheets, but none of those scheduling operations are exposed as tools. The server is essentially an account-authentication and feedback surface, and it even references missing tools like account_get and account_set_contact, so it severely under-serves the stated ZenSched purpose.