WooCommerce: Update order status

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it never warns that status changes commonly trigger customer emails, stock adjustments, or other side effects, nor does it say whether invalid statuses are rejected. It does not contradict the annotations, but it leaves real behavioral consequences undisclosed.

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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no padding. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is mild noise but costs almost nothing in length.

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?

This is a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with zero schema description coverage and no output schema, so the description needs to do more. It omits valid status values, whether transitions are validated, side effects (emails, stock, hooks), and error behavior — all of which an agent must know before invoking it.

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 description carries the full burden for three required parameters. It only loosely characterizes 'status' via examples ('pending, processing, completed, etc.'), and gives no meaning at all for 'site' (URL? key? alias?) or 'order_id'. The 'etc.' also implies an open set with no enumeration.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Update WooCommerce order status') and names the entity being mutated, which cleanly separates it from siblings like woocommerce_update_customer or woocommerce_update_product. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent away from any alternative, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. order must exist), and no statement about which statuses are valid transitions versus arbitrary strings. The status examples hint at typical use but do not constitute guidance.

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