Add bold headings, bullet lists, and structured paragraphs to an existing Teachers Pay Teachers product description. Submit separately to save changes.
Enter formatted paragraphs, bold headings and actual bullet lists in an existing matching product. Submit separately to save.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| remoteId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate that this is not read-only and is destructive, and the description adds the useful behavioral note that submission/saving is a separate step. It still leaves ambiguity about whether the tool replaces existing content, modifies in place, or only stages formatting.
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 brief, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no filler. The one caveat around 'Submit separately to save' is efficiently placed at the end.
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?
Given two required parameters with zero schema coverage and no output schema, this description is insufficient for reliable invocation. It conveys a rough workflow purpose but does not explain what id and remoteId mean, what 'existing matching product' refers to, or what the expected result/return value is.
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 provides no explanation of the required id and remoteId parameters. It does not even hint that these identifiers correspond to the 'existing matching product,' leaving the agent without enough information to populate the fields correctly.
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 identifies a specific action and resource: entering formatted paragraphs, bold headings, and bullet lists into an existing matching product. It is clear that this tool is about formatting a saved product's description, but it does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as tpt_prepare_product or tpt_submit_product.
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 phrase 'Submit separately to save' gives useful workflow context, implying this tool is a formatting step and not the final save action. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites such as whether the product must already exist and be verified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.