Update WooCommerce Product Variation

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds error handling details (404 on not found), return value ('Returns: The updated variation object'), and confirms idempotency by stating only supplied fields change. This provides behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured with an intro, Args list, Returns, and Error Handling sections. It is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. Minor improvement could be more bullet-point style for readability.

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 has 9 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: required IDs, updatable fields, output format, and error handling. It provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 only 11%, but the description lists the parameters (product_id, variation_id, sku, regular_price, sale_price, manage_stock, stock_quantity, stock_status, response_format) and groups them as 'pricing, stock, SKU.' It mentions response_format default and error handling. While not exhaustive, it adds meaning beyond the sparse schema 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 tool updates fields on an existing product variation, focusing on pricing, stock, and SKU. It uses the verb 'update' and specifies the resource, making it distinct from sibling tools like create, get, delete, and list variations.

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 implies usage for modifying existing variations through 'Update fields on an existing product variation' and 'Only supplied fields are changed.' However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives among siblings.

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