Update WooCommerce product fields such as price, stock, status, categories, tags, and metadata using the site and product ID.
Update a WooCommerce product
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Product ID | |
| sku | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| tags | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| meta_data | No | ||
| categories | No | ||
| sale_price | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| manage_stock | No | ||
| stock_status | No | ||
| regular_price | No | ||
| stock_quantity | No | ||
| short_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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing. It doesn't explain partial-update semantics (whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared), permission requirements, validation failures, or side effects on stock and pricing — critical for a 15-parameter mutation tool.
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?
Four words is well under the space needed rather than genuinely concise. It is front-loaded but the omission of any qualifying detail is under-specification, not efficiency.
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 15-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 13% parameter coverage needs substantial description to be safely callable. The one-line description leaves the agent without update semantics, return behavior, or field guidance — completely inadequate for this complexity.
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 13% (just 'id' and 'site'), so 13 of 15 parameters are undocumented anywhere. The description adds no meaning for fields like sale_price, manage_stock, meta_data, or categories, leaving the agent to guess at formats and expected types.
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 specific verb ('Update') and resource ('WooCommerce product'), which is clear enough for an agent to grasp the operation. However, it offers no differentiation from closely related siblings such as woo_update_variation, woo_update_product_meta, or woo_bulk_update_stock, so it falls short of a 5.
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 at all: it doesn't say when to prefer this over woo_update_product_meta or woo_update_variation, nor does it note that it requires an existing product id. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.