WooCommerce: Update product

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that, and critically omits the partial-update contract: with 16 nullable fields all defaulting to null, an agent cannot tell whether an omitted field is preserved or cleared — exactly the behavior destructiveHint=true makes dangerous here. No contradiction with the annotations, just missing context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the coverage gaps rather than a virtue on its own.

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 16-parameter destructive mutation with zero schema documentation and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent needs the partial-update semantics and per-field string formats before it can call this safely; neither is present.

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% across 16 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and delivers only a partial field list. It never explains the expected string encodings for categories, tags, meta_data or the price fields, nor the null-means-unchanged default that governs every optional parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update an existing WooCommerce product") and enumerates the field families affected, so an agent can immediately distinguish it from create_product and delete_product siblings. It stops short of naming the SEO-specific sibling (wordpress_update_product_seo), which is the one realistic source of confusion.

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 / when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The most important routing question for this family — whether to use this tool or wordpress_update_product_seo for SEO metadata — is left to inference, and the precondition that the product must already exist is only implied by "existing".

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