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 that posts keep their assignment, that slug/parent changes relocate the archive URL, and that the response `note` reports what moved. Auth/permission requirements and failure behavior (nonexistent term) are still undisclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by the side-effect caveat and the prerequisite rule in two tight sentences. The nested get-skill-doc invocation is slightly awkward inline but earns its place as a required step.

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, yet the description still usefully explains the `note` field, and it covers the main mutation side effects for a 6-param tool. Remaining gaps are only edge-case/error behavior.

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 only 50%, so name, slug, and description are undocumented in the schema; the description partially compensates by naming those editable fields and confirming 0 = top level. It adds no syntax detail (e.g., slug format rules) beyond what the schema already carries.

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 (rename/change/move) and resource (term) plus the exact editable facets (name, slug, description, parent), which cleanly separates it from create-term and delete-term siblings. The scope is unambiguous 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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite — read get-skill-doc {id:"content-model-contract"} before the first call — which is actionable routing guidance. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives (e.g., set-post-terms for reassigning posts), so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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