Sign the OWNER in by email — no dashboard, no key copying. Works for existing accounts AND (when signups are open) new ones. FLOW: yetty_login {email:"owner@x.com"} -> {login_ref} -> the owner clicks the emailed link -> poll yetty_login_status {login_ref} every ~20s -> it returns an api_key ONCE + the exact reconnect command. Use this whenever you are unauthenticated or your token expired.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the flow in detail: returns a login_ref, requires the owner to click an emailed link, and then polling via yetty_login_status yields an api_key once and the reconnect command. It also notes the condition about signups being open. This is thorough and gives the agent a clear mental model.
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 well-structured: it starts with a concise summary, then presents a clear FLOW sequence with arrow notation, and ends with a usage directive. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage, with 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?
Without an output schema, the description compensates by explaining the return values (login_ref, then api_key and reconnect command). It covers the full lifecycle of login, including polling steps. The given context (single parameter, no complications) is fully addressed, making the description complete for an agent to act upon.
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?
The schema only lists 'email' with a type of string, and the description adds meaning by specifying it's the OWNER's email and providing an example ('owner@x.com'). This clarifies the parameter's role but doesn't cover edge cases like format requirements or whether the email must be pre-registered. Given only one parameter, this is sufficient.
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 action ('Sign the OWNER in by email') and the resource (owner account). It distinguishes itself from siblings like yetty_login_status (which polls status) and yetty_signup (which handles signups) by detailing its own flow and when to use it. The phrase 'no dashboard, no key copying' further clarifies its role.
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?
It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this whenever you are unauthenticated or your token expired.' It also provides a step-by-step flow, including when to poll yetty_login_status, giving clear guidance on the sequence. While it doesn't name alternative tools, it explains its own role fully and covers both new and existing accounts.
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.
