Add an internal or customer-facing note to a WooCommerce order to document status updates or communicate with the buyer.
Add a note to an order
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Order ID | |
| note | Yes | Note content | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| customer_note | No | Send to customer |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.4.0Input schema / properties / siteAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Site id (see list_sites)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "id",
- "note"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "id",
+ "note"
+]v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about side effects (e.g., that customer_note=true may email the customer), whether notes are private, or what permissions are required for a mutation.
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 single short sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely concise given the tool writes to an order.
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 and no output schema, the description leaves key agent-facing questions unanswered: the customer-notification side effect and any permission requirements. The structured fields cover inputs but the description adds no compensating 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 100% (id, note, site, customer_note all documented), so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, format, or length semantics beyond what the schema already states.
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 ('Add a note to an order'), which is unambiguous for an agent. It does not distinguish itself from the close sibling woo_get_order_notes or explain which order's notes are affected, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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 guidance on when to add a note versus modify an order, or when to use the customer-facing variant. The only usage signal is smuggled into the schema via customer_note's 'Send to customer' description, not the tool description itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.