Create a WooCommerce product category for a selected WordPress site to organize store products by name, slug, parent, image, or description.
Create a product category
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Category name | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| slug | No | ||
| parent | No | ||
| image_id | No | ||
| description | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost nothing: it does not say whether a duplicate name/slug fails or is silently suffixed, whether the slug is auto-generated, what permissions are required, or what the creation returns. 'Create' is the only disclosed behavior, which duplicates the name.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than tight prose.
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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, one vague sentence is inadequate. The agent lacks warning about duplicate handling, hierarchy behavior via 'parent', or what a successful call yields.
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 coverage is only 33% and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. Only 'name' and 'site' carry schema descriptions; slug, parent, image_id, and description are undocumented anywhere, and the description does not tell the agent that slug/parent/image_id are optional or how parent encoding works.
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 category'), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from closely related siblings such as mcp_create_term, wp_create_category, or woo_create_attribute_term, which a reader would have to disambiguate by name alone.
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 rather than woo_update_category (existing category) or the tag/term creation tools. Prerequisites such as needing a valid site id are only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.