Check a parked upload. States: parked (send yetty_signup) -> awaiting-approval (owner must click the email) -> approved (returns your api_key ONCE + waiting_url — reconnect with Authorization: Bearer for the full toolset).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| park_ref | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors such as the api_key being returned 'ONCE' and the need to reconnect with a Bearer token for the full toolset. It also explains the state flow, which is transparent about what the tool reports.
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 a single, dense sentence that packs a lot of information efficiently. It is front-loaded with the purpose and then explains states and actions, with no wasted words.
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 status-check tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: states, transitions, and return behavior (api_key once, waiting_url). It does not address error cases, but that is acceptable for such a simple tool.
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 does not explicitly define the park_ref parameter. However, the tool's name and the phrase 'Check a parked upload' strongly imply park_ref is the identifier for the upload. The description adds minimal value beyond what the name suggests, but it is not misleading.
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 function: 'Check a parked upload.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the state-transition details distinguish it from siblings like yetty_status by focusing on the parked-upload lifecycle.
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 implicitly explains when to use the tool (after parking an upload) and provides explicit next steps per state, including referencing yetty_signup for the parked state. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear.
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.
