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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and non-idempotent, but the description adds a genuinely non-obvious trait: the call is queued for human approval in Royally and nothing on the live site changes until then. That explains why a 'destructive' mutation may return without any site change. It does not say what the call returns (an approval/request id) or how long approval takes.

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 action and site, followed by the highest-value caveat. Minor friction from the capitalized 'Through Royally:' fragment, but no filler.

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?

The approval-gating disclosure covers the single most surprising behavior for a mutation tool, and there is no output schema to explain. However, with ten parameters at 10% schema coverage and no mention of partial-update semantics or return value, the definition leaves real gaps an agent must guess through.

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 10% — just site_id — so the description must carry the load for the other nine parameters, and it says nothing. The critical semantic question for a 10-field update tool, whether omitted fields are left untouched (partial update) versus reset, is unaddressed, as is the meaning of status values or price string formats.

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 and resource ("Update a WooCommerce product") and even pins the target site, so the agent knows exactly what it does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from wc_create_product or the many other product/order tools in the fleet, but the verb 'update' plus the required id parameter makes the distinction inferable.

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?

Usage is only implied: you call it when you have an existing product id to modify. There is no statement of when to prefer wc_create_product instead, no prerequisites, and no note on what happens if the id doesn't exist. The approval-workflow sentence is behavioral context, not selection guidance.

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