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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers the most consequential trait: hierarchical is immutable after creation, and storage is first-party rather than plugin-backed. It does not cover permissions, rate limits, or failure behavior, but the irreversibility warning is the single fact an agent must know before calling.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the purpose and the immutability warning come first, then the dedup and sequencing guidance. The trailing 'Rules:' fragment is slightly clipped but still earns its space by pointing at the governing doc.

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 9-parameter creation tool with an output schema (which removes any need to describe return values), the description covers purpose, prerequisites, ordering, and the one irreversible design decision. Only operational concerns such as required capability or conflict handling are untouched.

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 100% and each of the 9 parameters already carries a detailed description, including the same immutability note for hierarchical. The prose adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Register a NEW taxonomy') plus its scope ('attached to post types'), which cleanly separates it from update-taxonomy, create-term, and create-post-type. The NEW qualifier and the 'stored by Fabrement, no third-party plugin' clause pin down exactly what is made.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing: run list-taxonomies FIRST with the rationale (duplicate taxonomies split content), then fill the taxonomy with create-term, and read get-skill-doc {content-model-contract} before the first call. This is when-to-use, prerequisite, and follow-up guidance in one place.

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