verify_email_otpVerifies a 6-digit email code and returns a verificationToken valid for ~30 minutes. The draft tools require this token. Re-verifying the same email issues a fresh token that still reaches the same drafts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | The 6-digit code from the user's inbox | |
| Yes | Same email the code was sent to |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond the annotations: the token is valid for ~30 minutes, re-verification issues a fresh token, and the fresh token still reaches the same drafts. It also implies a state-changing operation consistent with readOnlyHint=false, with no 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 with no filler. The core action and output are front-loaded, and the token's role in the broader workflow is stated in the second sentence. Every sentence adds value.
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 verification tool with no output schema, the description covers the return value, token expiry, downstream dependency, and idempotency-like behavior. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.
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 coverage is 100%, and both 'email' and 'code' are already described accurately in the schema. The description's mention of a '6-digit code' matches rather than extends the schema. Since the schema carries the parameter meaning, a baseline score is appropriate.
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 specific verb ('verifies'), a specific resource ('6-digit email code'), and the key output ('verificationToken'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling request_email_otp by focusing on verification rather than sending. The title matches the function clearly.
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 draft tools require this token, which tells the agent when this tool fits in the workflow. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the token requirement provides clear contextual guidance and placement after receiving the email code.
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.