Verify a saved product's files and listing fields using its numeric ID, then confirm draft or active status for accurate records.
Reopen a saved seller product by its observed TPT numeric ID. Verify saved files and listing fields before recording a confirmed draft or active listing.
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this may mutate state. The description adds context about verifying saved files and listing fields before confirming a draft or active listing. However, it does not clarify what side effects occur when reopening or verifying a saved product, and the relationship between 'verifying' and 'recording' is not made explicit.
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 concise and front-loaded with the action ('Reopen a saved seller product'). Both sentences convey useful workflow context without excessive detail, though the second sentence's role could be clearer.
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 tool with no output schema and annotations that only hint at safety, the description leaves out important operational details: what the agent should do with the reopened product, what 'verified' looks like, whether the tool itself records the draft/active listing, and what the result or next step is. The description is not sufficient as a standalone guide for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.
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 must carry the burden for explaining parameters. It hints that 'remoteId' is the observed TPT numeric ID, but it never explains what 'id' is, how the two IDs relate, or where either value comes from. The pattern constraints in the schema help but do not convey semantic meaning.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Reopen a saved seller product' and 'Verify saved files and listing fields'. It conveys a verification/reopen workflow, though it does not sharply distinguish itself from sibling tools like tpt_get_product, and the phrase 'before recording' leaves the tool's exact scope slightly ambiguous.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It implies the tool is for reopening and verifying saved products before recording, but it never names alternatives or explains what distinguishes this from tpt_get_product, tpt_product_status, or tpt_inspect.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.