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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-idempotent, and the description goes substantially further: it explains there is no trash, posts lose the term, orphaned posts get the default category, child terms move to the parent, term meta is removed, default terms are protected, permission is required, and the return value is {deleted: true}.

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 dense but front-loaded: the first clause states the action and irreversibility. Every subsequent clause adds concrete operational detail about side effects, constraints, permissions, or return value, with no filler.

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 destructive two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key missing context: permanence, side effects on posts and child terms, protected default terms, error conditions, required capability, and the exact return shape.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description still adds useful semantic detail by stating that an unknown term_id returns an error and that the taxonomy's default term cannot be deleted, which clarifies parameter behavior beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a term from a taxonomy for good.' It makes the delete operation and its scope immediately clear, and the surrounding details distinguish it from update/create/list siblings without ambiguity.

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 implies when this tool applies (permanent term deletion) and states important exclusions, such as the default term not being deletable. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives like wp_update_term or explain when not to use deletion versus updating.

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