wordpress_wc_update_product

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update' without explaining side effects (e.g., overwrites existing data, requires specific permissions, or rate limits). The schema's 'updates' object allows arbitrary properties, but the description provides no warning or constraints.

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 sentence, achieving conciseness but sacrificing informative structure. It lacks bullet points or separate sections to present usage details, parameter semantics, or examples. While not verbose, it is too sparse to be fully effective.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description must compensate by explaining return values, error handling, and scope of updates. It fails to do so, leaving gaps about what the function returns, whether updates are partial or full, and which fields are actually supported beyond the schema's generic object.

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%, and the description adds no explanation for the two parameters. 'productId' and 'updates' are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not describe their types, formats, or valid values, which is especially needed for the 'updates' object with arbitrary properties.

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 states 'Update WooCommerce product', which is a verb+resource combination, but lacks specificity about what aspects of the product can be updated (e.g., title, price, stock). It distinguishes from siblings like wordpress_wc_create_product by the verb, but further details would clarify its scope.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wordpress_wc_create_product, wordpress_wc_delete_product, or wordpress_update_post. The description does not mention prerequisites, error conditions, or appropriate contexts, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone.

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