request_email_otpSends a 6-digit verification code to the given email address. The code is exchanged for a verificationToken via verify_email_otp, and that token authorizes the draft tools. Codes expire after 10 minutes and are rate-limited per email.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Email address to verify — the user's real inbox |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) but non-destructive. The description adds that codes expire after 10 minutes and are rate-limited per email, which supplements the annotations without contradiction.
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 sentences, no wasted words. Information is front-loaded: action, purpose, flow, constraints. Excellent efficiency.
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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers action, flow, expiration, rate-limiting, and integration with sibling tools. Entirely adequate.
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 one parameter with full description coverage. The description adds the context 'the user's real inbox', reinforcing the email purpose meaningfully beyond the schema.
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 it sends a 6-digit code to an email and explains its role in the verification flow (exchanged for a token via verify_email_otp, authorizes draft tools). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool verify_email_otp.
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 states the flow: send the code, then use verify_email_otp to exchange it. It provides clear context for when to use this tool (before verify_email_otp), though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it.
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.
Each tool maps to a distinct lifecycle step: OTP request/verify, draft create/update/submit, status, and guide retrieval. The only closely related pair, request_email_otp and verify_email_otp, is clearly separated by one sending a code and one exchanging it for a token.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, such as create_incorporation_draft, update_incorporation_draft, and verify_email_otp. Minor variation like submit_incorporation instead of submit_incorporation_draft does not hurt predictability.
Seven tools is well-scoped for an incorporation workflow: email verification, draft management, submission, status checks, and a guide. Each tool has a clear purpose and none feel redundant.
The tool set covers the full applicant journey from guide and email verification through draft creation, editing, submission, and status tracking. There is no delete/cancel tool, but submission is explicitly irreversible, so no obvious workflow dead end exists.