Submit a reviewed listing on Teachers Pay Teachers once authorized and uploads are verified; resolve any unverified status before retrying.
Submit the reviewed current listing. Requires user authorization, verified completed uploads and reviewed required fields. A resulting unverified status must be reconciled before retrying.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| active | No | ||
| authorized | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: it requires user authorization, mentions verified uploads and required-field review as preconditions, and warns that an 'unverified status' may result and must be reconciled before retry. This is consistent with the destructive and open-world annotations and gives the agent a clearer picture of side effects.
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 two sentences with no wasting words. It front-loads the core action and then efficiently states prerequisites and a post-submission caveat.
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 destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites and outcome status, which is helpful. However, it does not explain what the product fields mean, what the response contains, or what 'current listing' refers to, leaving some ambiguity for an agent without additional context.
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%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameters, but it only indirectly references authorization (authorized) and the listing context (id). It does not explain the 'active' parameter or how the id should be obtained. This is a significant gap for a tool with three undocumented parameters.
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 states a specific action, 'Submit', applied to 'the reviewed current listing', which clearly identifies the tool's role in the product submission workflow. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from a sibling like tpt_verify_saved_product, but 'submit' versus 'verify' is reasonably clear.
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 clear prerequisites: user authorization, verified completed uploads, and reviewed required fields, which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate to use. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the conditions imply it should be used only after preparatory steps like upload and review are done.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.