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?
Annotations indicate this is not read-only and not destructive; the description adds practical behavioral context: it sends a verification email, is rate-limited, and requires no authentication. This informs the agent about side effects and constraints beyond what annotations state.
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 concise sentences front-load the core purpose and immediately cover step semantics, authentication status, rate limit, and the next action. No filler or redundancy.
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?
The description is sufficiently complete for a two-parameter tool: it names purpose, side effect, next step, authentication requirement, and rate limiting. The output schema can cover return details, and annotations cover safety profile.
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 descriptions are absent for both parameters, so the description needed to clarify parameter usage. It only implicitly references email and never explains org_name's role or format. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the 0% schema coverage.
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 states the tool's action: creating a ZenSched org in step 1 of 2 by sending a 6-digit verification code to an email. It distinguishes itself from related auth flows like sign-in and recovery by explicitly naming the signup flow and next step.
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 explicitly says this is step 1 of 2, tells the agent to next call account_signup_verify, and notes that the operation is unauthenticated and rate-limited. This gives clear contextual usage guidance and prevents confusion with sibling tools.
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.