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?
The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that key rotation is not involved, the verification can be retried, and failure can be handled via account_use_key. It is consistent with the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint 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?
The description is compact, front-loads the core purpose, and each sentence adds distinct useful information: what the tool does, where to call it, and what to do if things fail.
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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers workflow positioning, retry behavior, and fallback alternatives. The main gap is parameter-level detail, but the overall invocation context is clear enough for an agent.
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 input schema has no parameter descriptions and schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only implicitly explains 'code' as the emailed code. The 'email' parameter is not clarified at all, leaving important semantics unstated.
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 clearly identifies the action as verifying an emailed code and specifies it is step 2 of 2 for reconnecting an existing org. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by describing the exact workflow position and purpose.
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 guidance: call after account_signin_start, and if later org tools fail, retry account_signin_verify or use account_use_key. This directly helps an agent choose between alternatives and sequence calls.
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.