commerce_product_updateModify an existing commerce product's title, SKU, price, or status using its product ID. Keeps catalog data current and accurate in Drupal.
Update a commerce product.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sku | No | ||
| price | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| product_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing. It does not explain whether this is a partial/merge update or a full replace, what happens to fields left as null versus omitted, whether the operation is reversible, or what permissions are required. The only signal is the implied mutation from "update".
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?
It is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness: a five-parameter mutation tool cannot be adequately described in four words. Nothing is front-loaded because there is essentially nothing to front-load.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and five undocumented parameters, the description is far too thin to let an agent call it safely or correctly.
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?
Five parameters exist with 0% schema description coverage, and the description contributes no parameter meaning at all. Critically, the schema's null-defaulted fields (sku, price, title, status) leave the null-vs-omitted semantics undefined, and the description does not compensate.
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 specific verb and resource ("Update a commerce product"), which is unambiguous about the operation. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings such as commerce_product_create, commerce_product_get, and commerce_product_list, so an agent gets no help choosing among them beyond the verb.
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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. the product must already exist), and no mention of alternatives like commerce_product_create for new products. Usage is only implied by the verb "update".
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.