Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable write. The description adds the partial-update contract (only send changed fields), but does not disclose side effects such as stock/price recalculation or what an omitted field leaves untouched.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed immediately by the key usage constraint. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 14-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential patch contract and safety is supplied by annotations. It is still thin on side effects and on the many undocumented parameters, but an agent has enough to invoke it 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 only 43% across 14 parameters; fields like sku, status, featured, categories, manage_stock, stock_status and stock_quantity carry no schema description. The description adds nothing about these parameters (e.g. price formats, category ID resolution, stock interaction rules), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Update) and resource (an existing WooCommerce product), which distinguishes it from the sibling woo_create_product. It does not, however, distinguish it from woo_update_variation or explain how it relates to product variations.

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 sentence 'Only provide the fields you want to change' gives useful patch-style usage guidance for this tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as woo_update_variation, and no mention of prerequisites like required permissions or ID validity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.