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?
Discloses code expiry (10 minutes) and rate limiting per email, which are behavioral traits beyond annotations. 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 sentences, no wasted words. First sentence states the main action, second explains flow and constraints. Front-loaded and efficient.
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 tool with annotations present, the description covers the flow, next steps, and important constraints (expiry, rate limiting). No missing information for correct usage.
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 has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'email' with a clear description. Tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond schema, so baseline of 3 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?
Clearly states 'Sends a 6-digit verification code to the given email address', specifying the action, resource, and outcome. Distinguishes from sibling verify_email_otp by explaining the flow.
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?
Explains that the code is exchanged via verify_email_otp and authorizes draft tools, giving context on when to use. Mentions expiry and rate limiting, but does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: OTP flow, draft CRUD (create/update/submit), status retrieval, and a guide. No two tools overlap in functionality.
All tools use snake_case with a consistent verb_noun pattern, and the 'incorporation' prefix is used for domain-specific tools, while OTP tools have their own consistent naming.
7 tools is an appropriate scope for an incorporation workflow, covering OTP verification, draft management, submission, and status tracking without being excessive.
The set covers the full lifecycle (create, update, submit, status, guide) and email verification. Missing a delete/cancel draft or list drafts tool, but these are minor gaps.