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 reveals that this is a mutation tool ('Update'), specifies partial update behavior, and documents a special case for sale_price removal. However, it lacks information about permissions, side effects, error conditions, or response format, leaving significant gaps 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 with only two sentences, both of which add value. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides important behavioral and parameter guidance without any wasted words.

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?

For a mutation tool with 8 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. While it covers partial update behavior and sale_price handling, it lacks information about permissions, validation rules, error responses, and the meaning of other parameters. The presence of an output schema helps but doesn't fully compensate for these 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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds crucial semantic information about partial updates ('Only provide fields you want to change') and the special handling for sale_price removal, which isn't evident from the schema alone. However, it doesn't explain the purpose or constraints of most of the 8 parameters, leaving some ambiguity.

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 ('Update a product') and specifies the resource ('product'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling update operations (like update_order_status), which would require a 5.

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 some implicit guidance ('Only provide fields you want to change') which suggests partial updates are supported, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_product or delete_product, nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints beyond the sale_price behavior.

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