wp_update_order

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 gate — safe mode demands explicit confirm:true — which signals that the operation is mutating and confirmation-controlled. But it does not say whether updates merge or replace existing data (especially for billing/shipping), what side effects occur (totals recalculation, order emails, webhooks), or what the operation returns.

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?

Fourteen words across two sentences: purpose first, constraint second. There is zero filler and no restating of schema types. Every clause earns its place, and the safe-mode caveat is positioned exactly where the reader decides whether to call the tool.

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 7-parameter tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, this is minimal but viable: the required id is schema-enforced, the updateable areas are named, and the safe-mode confirm gate is flagged. Clear gaps remain — whether updates are partial/merge or full/replace, whether confirm can be omitted when safe mode is off, and the response shape — making it adequate rather than complete.

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 only 14% (only confirm has a schema-level description), so the tool description must compensate. It maps three parameter groups to their real-world meaning (status, addresses, line items), which helps. However, it adds nothing about customer_note, does not explain the shape of the billing/shipping string maps, and largely restates the confirm requirement that the schema already documents.

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, resource, and scope: 'Update WooCommerce order status, addresses, or line items.' This differentiates it from read siblings like wp_get_order/wp_list_orders and from related mutations like wp_refund_order or wp_add_order_note. It loses a point because the 'or' phrasing implies the update targets are mutually exclusive when they are combinable, and it omits customer_note, which the schema explicitly supports.

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 provides one concrete conditional rule: 'confirm:true required when safe mode is enabled,' which tells the agent when a prerequisite applies. However, it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives such as wp_add_order_note (notes) or wp_refund_order (refunds), nor does it give exclusions. Usage context is mostly implied by the tool name and the update target rather than stated.

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