wp_update_product_price

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

There are no annotations, so the description is responsible for disclosing behavior. It only says 'update' and lists fields, but does not explain whether unspecified price fields are preserved, what happens when both sale_price and regular_price are provided, how to clear a price, or any side effects. For a mutation tool this is insufficient.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler and places the verb/resource first. It earns its place, though it sacrifices behavioral detail for brevity.

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?

For a simple mutation with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not explain return behavior, required product existence, or interactions between price fields, and the low schema coverage means an agent has little to work with. The bare listing of fields is the minimum viable information.

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?

Only the schema's 'price' parameter has a description ('Alias for regular_price'); regular_price and sale_price are otherwise undocumented in both schema and description. The description merely re-lists parameter names and does not clarify accepted string formats, currency handling, or precedence when multiple fields are passed. With 25% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 ('Update'), a resource ('WooCommerce product pricing'), and names exactly which fields are involved (regular_price, sale_price, price alias). This clearly separates it from the broader wp_update_product sibling, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 choose this tool over wp_update_product or other product-related tools. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' statement, so an agent would have to infer from the name/description alone. This is a clear gap.

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