For me, the thing is that in Pali, the distinction between a name and an epithet is not as clear as it is in English. In most cases, to be sure, a name is just a name and should not be translated. But in certain cases it seems justifiable.
Consider a name such as Andhavana. Despite the commentarial explanation and the subsequent translation of this as “Blind Man’s Grove” it seems very likely that the meaning of this is simply “Dark Forest”. And that is a common descriptor, one with a particular mood to it, that is lacking when it is not translated.
In other cases like Akkosaka Bharadvaja the meaning of the name is surely relevant; it must be purely an epithet: Angry Bharadvaja.
In the current case, I believe that the humor is quite intentional. As noted down the thread, dialogues with yakkhas tends to have a humorous tone to them, and I have no doubt this was the Buddha’s intent.