Update a WooCommerce order's status by site and order ID, with an optional note, to manage pending, processing, completed, cancelled, refunded, failed, or on-hold states.
Update order status
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Order ID | |
| note | No | Optional status change note | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| status | Yes | New status (pending, processing, on-hold, completed, cancelled, refunded, failed) |
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",
- "status"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "id",
+ "status"
+]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 implies a mutation but does not describe permissions, side effects, reversibility, or the effect of changing order status beyond the status itself.
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 extremely short and front-loaded, but for a four-parameter mutation tool it is arguably too terse. It avoids waste but provides minimal structure or context.
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?
The schema fully documents the parameters, which covers a significant portion of the calling contract. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description remains thin for a mutation operation, especially regarding permissions and behavior.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, including the allowed status values. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline score of 3 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Update order status'. It is clear what operation is performed, but it does not differentiate from related sibling tools such as woo_get_order or woo_add_order_note.
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. It does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions under which this tool should be selected over related order tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.