Add ONE file to the parked batch. Args: batch_ref (the pk_... park_ref); path (relative, folders allowed); content (text) OR content_base64 (binary). Returns {received_bytes, sha256} — verify against your local copy; mismatch = resend THIS file. Send EXACT bytes, never retype.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| content | No | ||
| batch_ref | Yes | ||
| content_base64 | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return payload {received_bytes, sha256}, instructs verification against the local copy, and warns to send exact bytes and resend on mismatch. This is strong behavioral guidance, though it omits error cases and edge behaviors.
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 with front-loaded purpose, followed by parameters and return/verification behavior. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.
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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameters, return hash, and verification workflow. It leaves minor ambiguity about whether exactly one content field is required and batch lifecycle boundaries, but is otherwise complete.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates fully. It explains batch_ref as the pk_... park_ref, path as relative with folders allowed, and content/content_base64 as text vs binary alternatives, adding meaning far beyond the raw schema field names.
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 opens with 'Add ONE file to the parked batch,' a specific verb+object+context statement. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like batch_start and batch_end by emphasizing single-file addition to an existing parked batch.
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 gives clear context: use this to add one file to a batch referenced by batch_ref, and the phrase 'parked batch' implies it fits between batch_start and batch_end. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes: batch start/file/end are clearly separated, as are signup, login, and template pulling. However, yetty_claim_status and yetty_login_status both check statuses (of parked upload vs email login) and could be confused without careful reading, though their descriptions clearly differentiate them.
All tools share the 'yetty_' prefix and use snake_case, but the pattern varies: some are verb_noun (batch_start, batch_file, pull_template), others are noun (status, claim_status, authoring_guide). While readable and consistent in prefix, the lack of a uniform verb_noun structure is a minor deviation.
10 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool corresponds to a necessary step in the workflow (parking files, approving, authenticating, pulling templates, and checking status), with no redundant or superfluous additions.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle from parking a batch to owner approval and post-authentication access, plus template retrieval. The main gap is lack of explicit cancellation or resend-email tools, but the flow seems self-consistent and agents can likely work around minor omissions.
