WooCommerce MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that setting 'customer_note=True' makes the note visible to customers, which is valuable context about visibility/permissions. However, it doesn't address other critical behavioral aspects like whether this is a write operation (implied but not stated), what permissions are required, what happens on success/failure, or how it interacts with the order system.

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 perfectly concise - two sentences that directly address the tool's core functionality and a key parameter nuance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. The information is front-loaded with the primary purpose stated immediately.

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?

Given that this is a write operation (implied by 'create' in the name) with no annotations and 3 parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description should ideally address more behavioral aspects for a mutation tool. It covers the basic purpose and one parameter nuance, leaving other important context 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?

The description adds meaningful context about the 'customer_note' parameter's effect ('make it visible to the customer'), which goes beyond the schema's basic type information. However, with 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters total, it doesn't explain 'order_id' or 'note' parameters at all. The baseline is 3 since the description provides some parameter context but doesn't fully compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 the action ('Add a note') and target resource ('to an order'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'list_order_notes' or 'update_order_status', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 provides minimal usage guidance by mentioning the 'customer_note' parameter, but offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_order_status' or how it relates to 'list_order_notes'. There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases.

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