Create a new WooCommerce product attribute for a specified site, setting its name, slug, type, ordering, and archive support.
Create a product attribute
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Attribute name | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| slug | No | ||
| type | No | select | |
| order_by | No | menu_order | |
| has_archives | No |
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: -[
- "name"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "name"
+]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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create' and gives no information about required permissions, side effects, default behavior, idempotency, or what happens on failure.
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 sentence is short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. For a six-parameter creation tool with no annotations, far more information is needed.
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 six parameters, 33% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not tell an agent how to call the tool correctly or what to expect from 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 only 33%, with slug, type, order_by, and has_archives undocumented. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the incomplete schema.
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 ('Create a product attribute'), so the basic purpose is clear. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and does not differentiate from nearby siblings such as woo_create_attribute_term or woo_list_attributes.
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. It does not mention prerequisites, when a product attribute should be created, or how it relates to attribute terms or existing attributes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.