Update a WooCommerce customer's email, name, billing, and shipping details using the customer ID and site.
Update a customer
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Customer ID | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| No | |||
| billing | No | ||
| shipping | No | ||
| last_name | No | ||
| first_name | 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 behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing. It does not state required permissions, whether omitted fields are cleared or preserved, whether the update is reversible, or that a site and customer id are mandatory. For a mutation tool this is a critical 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?
Three words are technically concise, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is nothing to front-load and no useful structure.
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?
A seven-parameter mutation tool with nested billing/shipping objects, no annotations, and no output schema demands far more than a three-word description. An agent cannot determine required arguments, update semantics, or side effects.
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 29%, with five parameters (email, billing, shipping, first_name, last_name) undocumented, and two of them are nested objects. The description adds zero parameter meaning, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 verb (Update) and resource (customer), so the basic operation is identifiable. However, it gives no scope: which fields are updatable, whether it is a partial or full update, or how it differs from siblings like woo_create_customer or woo_get_customer. It is adequate but vague.
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 such as woo_create_customer for new customers or woo_get_customer for reads. The only hint is the verb 'Update' itself, which the agent must infer from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.