Adds a new WooCommerce product variation to an existing parent product using its site ID, required attributes, optional SKU, prices, and inventory settings.
Create a product variation
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sku | No | ||
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| attributes | Yes | Variation attributes | |
| product_id | Yes | Parent product ID | |
| sale_price | No | ||
| manage_stock | No | ||
| stock_status | No | instock | |
| regular_price | No | ||
| stock_quantity | 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: -[
- "product_id",
- "attributes"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "product_id",
+ "attributes"
+]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 a product variation' and omits permissions required, whether the parent product must already exist, whether stock or pricing side effects occur, and what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 description is a four-word phrase, which is under-specified rather than concise. It omits necessary details for a nine-parameter creation tool. Brevity here does not earn its place because critical context is missing.
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?
With nine parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and only 33% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It provides none of the prerequisites, parameter semantics, or behavioral context an agent needs to call this tool correctly.
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%, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. Six parameters (sku, sale_price, manage_stock, stock_status, regular_price, stock_quantity) have no descriptions in either schema or description. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a product variation.' It distinguishes from sibling verbs like update, delete, and list. However, it does not differentiate from woo_create_product or explain that a parent product is required, so it falls short of the highest clarity.
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 when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites like having an existing parent product, or when to prefer this over woo_update_variation or woo_create_product. The agent is left to infer everything.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.