23 tools with consistent naming (verb_noun pattern) and basic descriptions. However, most descriptions are terse (20-50 chars, well below the 194-char baseline for A+ tools). Input schemas present but minimal, most parameters lack detailed constraints, ranges, or format guidance. No output schemas documented. Error handling and recovery guidance absent. Tool composition is reasonable (single responsibility), but parameter descriptions do not explain dependencies, constraints, or expected formats. Security concerns: no evidence of secret injection patterns or permission gates despite write/destructive operations.

• Expand all tool descriptions to 100 - 250 chars. Include WHAT the tool does, WHEN to use it (vs. similar tools), and any prerequisites. E.g., 'Send an email via Zoho Mail. Use this to compose and send new messages. Requires from_address to be a configured Zoho Mail account. Returns message_id on success.'
• Document output schemas for all tools. Specify field names, types, and whether they are required. E.g., list_calendars returns [{calendar_id: string, name: string, owner: string}]. This enables tool chaining.
• Add format and constraint descriptions to all parameters. E.g., 'start_time (ISO 8601 string, e.g. 2024-01-15T09:00:00Z)', 'cc (array of email addresses)', 'file_path (absolute or relative path; must exist)'. Replace free-form strings with enums where applicable.
• Implement confirmation/dry-run for destructive operations. Add a 'confirm' parameter to zocli.calendar.event.delete and zocli.mail.attachment.upload. Return a confirmation token that must be passed to execute the operation.
• Add permission declarations and audit logging. Each tool should document required scopes (e.g., 'read:mail', 'write:calendar'). Log caller identity, tool name, parameters (excluding secrets), timestamp, and result for compliance and debugging.