Modify an existing WooCommerce product category by ID to update its name, slug, parent category, image, or description on a specified WordPress site.
Update a product category
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Category ID | |
| name | No | ||
| 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: -[
- "id"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "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 of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update a product category' and reveals nothing about required permissions, reversibility, side effects, or what happens to unspecified fields.
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 very short, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. For a mutation tool with seven parameters, this single sentence does not earn its place by conveying useful information.
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 the absence of annotations, no output schema, and low schema parameter coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It provides none of the context an agent needs to invoke a 7-parameter update operation 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?
The input schema has 7 parameters with only 29% description coverage, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. Fields like name, slug, parent, image_id, and description are left entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description.
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 ('Update') and resource ('product category'), so the basic action is clear. However, it offers no differentiation from sibling tools like woo_create_category, wp_update_category, or woo_delete_category, which an agent must infer from the tool 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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The description only implies that the tool is for updating an existing category, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.