wordpress_wc_update_stock

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'update' implies a mutation, it doesn't specify whether this requires specific WooCommerce permissions, what happens with invalid product IDs, whether changes are immediate or batched, or what the typical response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 at just four words, front-loading the essential action and target without any wasted text. Every word earns its place, making it easy to scan and understand at a glance.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the WooCommerce context, required permissions, error conditions, or what constitutes a successful update. The agent would need to guess about many operational aspects.

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 has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'productId', and the description provides no additional parameter information. It doesn't explain what format the product ID should be (numeric ID, SKU, etc.), where to find it, or what stock-related fields can be updated. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the documentation gap.

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') and target ('product inventory/stock levels'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from general product updates by focusing specifically on stock levels, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools beyond 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'wordpress_wc_update_product' (which might also handle stock) or other inventory management approaches. The description assumes the user already knows this is for WooCommerce products without stating prerequisites or context.

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