Update a WooCommerce product variation's price, stock, SKU, or attributes to keep store inventory and pricing accurate.
Update a product variation
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sku | No | ||
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| attributes | No | ||
| product_id | Yes | Parent product ID | |
| sale_price | No | ||
| manage_stock | No | ||
| stock_status | No | ||
| variation_id | Yes | Variation ID | |
| regular_price | No | ||
| stock_quantity | 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: -[
- "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 of behavioral disclosure and delivers none. For a mutation tool with 10 parameters, nothing is said about required permissions, whether changes are reversible, partial-update semantics, or side effects such as stock recalculation.
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 not conciseness here but under-specification; the sentence carries no useful information beyond the tool name and leaves the agent with nothing to act on.
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 mutation tool with 10 parameters, 30% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema demands a much richer description. Nothing about update semantics, idempotency, or the site/product_id/variation_id relationship is explained, so the definition is inadequate for correct 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?
With 10 parameters and only 30% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the gap but contributes zero parameter information. Fields like sku, sale_price, manage_stock, stock_quantity, and attributes are neither explained nor constrained anywhere in 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 names a verb (Update) and a resource (product variation), so the basic operation is identifiable. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'woo_update_variation' and offers no detail on what aspects of a variation are updatable, nor any differentiation from siblings like woo_create_variation or woo_delete_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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (woo_create_variation, woo_delete_variation, woo_update_product) and no stated prerequisites. The agent must infer usage entirely 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.