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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the crucial detail that when append is false, it 'replace[s] all terms of that taxonomy on the post' — a concrete disclosure of exactly what gets destroyed. This is genuinely useful beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no waste, and the destructive replace behavior is front-loaded after the core action. Every sentence earns its place.

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 4-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the key destructive behavior and append semantics well. But it omits the required-vs-optional distinction and any default for taxonomy, leaving gaps an agent must fill from the schema alone.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It fully explains the append parameter and implies taxonomy scoping, but leaves ID (post identifier) and terms (term IDs) unexplained in form or meaning. Minimum viable given the low coverage.

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: 'Attach terms to a post.' An agent can tell it is the write counterpart to wp_get_post_terms. However, it never names the sibling tools it replaces or complements, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 explains when to set append (add vs replace), which is conditional usage guidance. But it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over wp_update_post or wp_get_post_terms, nor any prerequisites or scope conditions.

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