WooCommerce MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a refund, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover critical behaviors: whether it requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on failure (e.g., invalid order_id), rate limits, or response format. The amount format hint ('e.g., '25.00'') is useful but insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds crucial parameter context. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the tool's complexity (a mutation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally complete. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the burden, but the description misses key context: no behavioral details, incomplete parameter guidance, and no usage rules. It's adequate for basic understanding but has clear 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'amount' by specifying it as a string with an example format ('25.00'), which clarifies beyond the schema's generic string type. However, it doesn't explain 'order_id' (e.g., where to find it) or 'reason' (e.g., optional, typical values), leaving two of three parameters inadequately documented.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create a refund for an order.' It specifies the verb ('Create') and resource ('refund for an order'), distinguishing it from siblings like create_coupon or create_customer. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other order-related tools like update_order_status, which could be relevant for refund scenarios.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., order must exist, payment must be captured), exclusions (e.g., cannot refund more than order total), or related tools like update_order_status for partial refunds. Usage is implied only by the action name.

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