Verify the OTP sent to the user's email and start a direct conversation with a tradesperson. Creates a homeowner account automatically if the email is new.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| otp | Yes | The 6-digit OTP code the user received by email | |
| Yes | The homeowner's email address (same as used in request_chat_otp) | ||
| message | Yes | The initial message to send to the tradesperson | |
| tradesperson_id | Yes | UUID of the tradesperson to contact |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the auto-creation side effect and OTP verification, but does not cover error conditions (e.g., invalid OTP), rate limits, or authentication requirements.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loading the key action. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.
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?
The description explains purpose and side effects adequately for a 4-param tool without output schema. It lacks detail on return values or error handling, but covers essential behavioral context.
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% with descriptions. The description adds minor context (e.g., email ties to request_chat_otp, OTP digit count) but does not significantly enhance meaning 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 the tool's purpose: verifying an OTP, starting a conversation, and auto-creating an account if new. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from sibling 'request_chat_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 implies usage context (after requesting OTP) and notes account auto-creation for new emails, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references. No exclusions are mentioned.
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 targets a distinct action: project creation, profile retrieval, OTP request, tradesperson search, and conversation initiation. No two tools have overlapping purposes, ensuring clear agent selection.
Tools generally follow verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_project, search_tradespeople). Minor inconsistency: 'tradesperson_profile' uses singular while 'tradespeople' uses plural, but overall pattern is consistent and readable.
With 5 tools covering project creation, search, profiles, and chat, the set is well-scoped for a homeowner-tradesperson matching server. Each tool serves a clear role without redundancy.
Core workflow is covered (create project, search, start conversation), but notable gaps exist: no tools for updating/deleting projects, viewing bids, or managing conversations. Agents may face dead ends.
