Delete a specific WooCommerce product variation by parent product ID and variation ID, removing outdated or incorrect variants from a catalog.
Delete a product variation
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| product_id | Yes | Parent product ID | |
| variation_id | Yes | Variation ID |
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",
- "variation_id"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "product_id",
+ "variation_id"
+]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. For a destructive operation, it says nothing about whether children/data are destroyed, whether the parent product is affected, or what happens to orders referencing the variation. The word 'Delete' is the only behavioral signal, which is insufficient.
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 zero filler. It is concise, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight writing of a complete idea.
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 destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three required parameters, the description omits critical context: permission requirements, irreversibility, cascading effects on parent/orders, and return behavior. It is far from complete enough for safe invocation.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents site, product_id, and variation_id. The description adds no additional parameter semantics (e.g., validation rules, ordering requirements), so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clear verb and resource ('Delete a product variation'), which is distinct from woo_delete_product. However, it is a bare tautology-level restatement with no scope, no destructive-behavior nuance beyond the verb, and no sibling differentiation (e.g., vs. woo_delete_product or woo_update_variation).
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 versus woo_delete_product, woo_update_variation, or alternative deletion paths. No prerequisites (permissions, product/variation state) are mentioned. The agent must infer everything from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.