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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds no behavioral context beyond the field list — nothing about what happens to omitted fields, whether changing a slug breaks existing links, or what the destructive aspect entails. It also fails to warn that this overwrites existing values.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler and the updatable fields front-loaded. Its fault is under-specification, not verbosity.

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 mutation with six undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify required identifiers, the taxonomy scope, and the consequences of partial updates. None of that is present.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden, yet it only names four optional fields without explaining them and omits the two required parameters (term_id, taxonomy) entirely. An agent must infer that term_id identifies the term and taxonomy scopes it.

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?

Specific verb ('Update') plus resource ('an existing term') and an enumeration of the mutable fields. It is distinguishable from siblings like wp_update_post or wp_update_comment by the 'term' resource, though it never explicitly juxtaposes itself with wp_create_term or wp_get_terms.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus wp_create_term (create), wp_get_terms (read), or wp_add_post_terms (assign). 'Existing term' weakly implies the term must already exist but nothing about prerequisites, taxonomy requirements, or when not to use it.

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