Link a parked upload to the owner's email: sends them an approval email. The site is processed ONLY after they click it. Args: email (the owner's), park_ref. Then poll yetty_claim_status every ~30s. Ask the owner to check their inbox.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | |||
| park_ref | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: processing occurs only after the owner clicks the approval link. It also reveals the asynchronous nature by recommending polling. However, it omits failure modes, error handling, or any side effects beyond sending the email.
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 efficient, using two sentences to cover purpose, parameters, and follow-up actions. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary detail.
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?
Despite lacking an output schema and annotations, the description provides a complete operational flow: link upload, send email, poll status, and instruct the owner. It gives enough context to invoke and monitor the process, though it does not detail return values or error scenarios.
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 provides no descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'email' is the owner's email, adding semantic value over the bare schema. However, 'park_ref' remains undefined, leaving ambiguity for that parameter.
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: linking a parked upload to the owner's email and sending an approval email. This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools like yetty_claim_status.
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 explicit post-call guidance: 'Then poll yetty_claim_status every ~30s. Ask the owner to check their inbox.' This clarifies the expected workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it with 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.
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.
