woo_update_variationUpdate a specific variation of a variable product.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | ||
| site_id | No | Site ID to target (optional if you have only one connected site) | |
| product_id | Yes | The parent product ID | |
| sale_price | No | ||
| manage_stock | No | Enable stock management for this variation | |
| stock_status | No | ||
| variation_id | Yes | The variation ID | |
| regular_price | No | ||
| stock_quantity | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / manage_stockAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Enable stock management for this variation",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so idempotency and non-destructiveness are covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond them: no statement of which fields are mutable, what happens to omitted fields, permission/auth needs, or rate limits for a 9-parameter mutation.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness. It is appropriately sized only in the sense that it cannot be shortened further.
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 mutation tool with 9 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits what can be updated, any constraints or side effects, and any routing to sibling variation/product tools, leaving substantial gaps.
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 44%, so the description is expected to compensate, but it names no parameters at all. Fields like sale_price, regular_price, stock_status, and status (two of them enums) are left entirely to the schema, and the description does not explain their interaction or intent.
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 a scoped resource (a specific variation of a variable product), which is clearer than the bare title. However, it does nothing to distinguish it from siblings like woo_update_product or woo_list_variations, so an agent must infer the boundary from context alone.
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 no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., need for a parent product ID), and no mention of related sibling tools. Usage is only implied by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.