wc_update_product

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says nothing. It does not disclose whether this is a partial or full update (i.e. whether omitted fields like name or sale_price are preserved or cleared), whether it requires authentication, or whether the change is reversible.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, but its brevity stems from under-specification rather than efficient communication. It is appropriately sized for what it attempts, but it attempts very little.

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 seven-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and near-zero schema descriptions, the description is wholly inadequate. An agent cannot safely invoke this tool knowing only that it 'updates a product'.

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?

Seven parameters with only 14% schema description coverage (only 'id'), yet the description adds zero parameter meaning. Fields like status, stock_status, regular_price and sale_price have no documented allowed values, formats, or defaults in either the schema or 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update a WooCommerce product'), which an agent can distinguish from wc_add_product and wc_delete_product by the verb alone. It is clear but adds no detail about scope or which attributes can be changed, so it does not differentiate beyond the operation type.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. permissions), and never references siblings such as wc_get_product to fetch current values first or wc_add_product for creation. Usage must be inferred entirely from the verb.

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