WooCommerce MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, if status changes are reversible, what happens with invalid status transitions, rate limits, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

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 - just two sentences that communicate the core functionality and parameter constraints efficiently. Every word earns its place: the first sentence states the purpose, the second provides critical parameter semantics. There's zero fluff or redundancy.

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 there's an output schema (which handles return values), the description's job is lighter. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations and 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It covers the status parameter well but lacks information about order_id format/validation, error conditions, permissions needed, and behavioral constraints. The presence of an output schema prevents a lower score, but significant gaps remain.

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 for the schema's lack of documentation. It effectively clarifies the 'status' parameter by listing all valid values (pending, processing, on-hold, completed, cancelled, refunded, failed), which adds significant semantic meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain the 'order_id' parameter or provide format/validation details.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('an order's status'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'update_product' by focusing specifically on order status rather than product attributes. However, it doesn't specify whether this is for a single order or batch processing, which prevents 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., order must exist), doesn't differentiate from similar tools like 'create_order_note' for status updates, and offers no context about appropriate scenarios or constraints. The list of status values is helpful but doesn't constitute usage guidance.

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