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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses idempotency ('an existing name is returned with created:false'), the refusal of a non-existent parent, and a required doc prerequisite. It omits permission/auth requirements and whether creation is reversible, keeping it short of 5.

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?

Three short sentences plus a one-line rule, with the core action front-loaded. The 'Rules:' line is slightly jarring in phrasing but earns its place by pointing at the prerequisite 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, yet the description still clarifies the created:false outcome. It covers the mutation's key behavioral facts (idempotency, parent validation, prerequisite) and is complete enough to call correctly, though explicit permission requirements are absent.

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%, so every parameter is already documented; baseline 3 applies. The description adds the validation semantic for 'parent' (nonexistent parent is refused), but adds no syntax or format detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a term') plus the scope ('any taxonomy, category and post_tag included'), which clearly separates it from create-taxonomy (which makes the taxonomy itself) and update-term/delete-term. An agent can identify the correct tool without opening the schema.

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?

Provides concrete operating context: idempotent behavior on duplicate names, the prerequisite to read get-skill-doc {id:"content-model-contract"} before the first call, and the valid-parent condition. It does not explicitly contrast against update-term or set-post-terms, so 5 is not reached.

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