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. It mentions 'force=True for permanent deletion,' which hints at a behavioral trait (permanent vs. non-permanent deletion), but it doesn't disclose other critical aspects like required permissions, side effects (e.g., if deletion affects related data), rate limits, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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—two short sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose and efficiently adds a key parameter detail, making it easy to scan and understand 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 deletion operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and a key parameter nuance but lacks details on permissions, errors, or broader context, leaving room for improvement.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining the 'force' parameter's effect ('permanent deletion'), which goes beyond the schema's basic type information. However, it doesn't cover the 'coupon_id' parameter or provide details like format or constraints, leaving some gaps. Since there are only 2 parameters and one is well-explained, it scores above baseline.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a coupon'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_product' or 'delete_webhook' beyond the resource name, which is why it doesn't reach 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 includes a brief usage note about 'force=True for permanent deletion,' which implies when to use that parameter, but it lacks broader guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compared to 'get_coupon' or 'list_coupons'), prerequisites, or exclusions. No explicit when/when-not or alternative tools are mentioned.

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