wordpress_wc_update_product

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. While 'Update' implies a mutation, it lacks critical details: it doesn't specify required permissions (e.g., WooCommerce admin access), whether changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., affecting orders or stock), or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it's overly concise to the point of under-specification, as it lacks necessary details for effective tool use, slightly reducing its utility despite the clean structure.

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 complexity (a mutation tool for WooCommerce products with 2 parameters and nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or the scope of updates, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly in a real-world context.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description adds no information about the two parameters ('productId' and 'updates'), such as what 'productId' represents (e.g., numeric ID from WooCommerce), what fields 'updates' can include (e.g., price, description, stock status), or format constraints. This leaves parameters largely undocumented.

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 'Update WooCommerce product' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('WooCommerce product'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'wordpress_update_product' or 'wordpress_wc_create_product', leaving ambiguity about its specific scope within the WooCommerce context.

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., needing an existing product ID), compare to 'wordpress_update_product' for non-WooCommerce products, or specify use cases like modifying product attributes, pricing, or inventory. Without this, users must infer usage from the name alone.

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