wp_update_product

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a meaningful side effect: a snapshot is created before the update, which implies recoverability. However, it omits other behavioral details relevant to a mutation tool, such as whether changes are reversible, required permissions, response behavior, or side effects beyond the snapshot.

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 short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise for a tool with 13 parameters and no schema descriptions or output schema. A single clause cannot carry the necessary information for correct usage.

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 13 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It identifies the operation and snapshot behavior but leaves parameter usage, alternative routing, output expectations, and prerequisites undocumented.

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 0%, and the description provides no meaning for any of the 13 parameters. It does not even note that 'id' is required or explain how fields like sale_price, stock_status, or manage_stock relate to the update. The agent must guess parameter semantics from bare type names alone.

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 clearly states the action ('Update a WooCommerce product') and adds a distinguishing safety note about creating a snapshot before updating. It identifies the general resource and operation, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling wp_update_product_price or clarify whether price updates belong here or there.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wp_create_product, wp_update_product_price, or wp_delete_product. The snapshot note hints at a safety-oriented workflow, but it does not state when this tool should be chosen over related product tools or mention any exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.