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?
Annotations are minimal false hints, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool creates an org, returns org_id and a zsc_ API key shown only once, and enforces a stateful postcondition (Claude.ai must Connect before further org tools). No contradiction with 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?
Two tightly packed sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by the critical return value warning, and then the postcondition. 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 its role as a two-step signup verification tool, the description covers what it does, the flow position, return values (org_id and one-time API key), and the mandatory next action (Connect). An output schema exists for structured return data, so no return-format gap remains.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'code' as the emailed verification code, but 'email' is only referenced indirectly as 'the same email' in the Connect instruction. An agent can infer the email should come from signup_start, but the description does not explicitly map both parameters.
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?
States a precise verb ('verify') and resource ('the emailed code'), and frames the action as 'Create a ZenSched org (step2 of 2)'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like account_signin_verify and account_recover_verify while clearly tying it to account_signup_start.
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?
Explicitly positions itself as step 2 of 2 in the signup flow, implying it should follow account_signup_start. It also provides an explicit exclusion: after this tool, 'do not keep calling org tools until Connect succeeds', which tells the agent exactly when to stop using the org tool family.
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.