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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful partial-update behavior (unmentioned fields are left untouched), which goes beyond the annotations, but says nothing about failure modes or whether omitted fields are preserved vs. cleared.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the one actionable rule follows it directly. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 six-parameter mutation tool, the combination of a fully described schema, complete safety annotations, and the partial-update note leaves little an agent needs to know before calling it. Missing only minor context such as behavior on an invalid or nonexistent category id, and no output schema exists so return values need not be explained.

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 in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 ("Update an existing WordPress category"), so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not, however, differentiate itself from adjacent siblings such as wp_update_tag or wp_create_category, which would require an explicit contrast.

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?

"Only provide the fields you want to change" implies partial-update semantics and is genuinely useful guidance for a mutation tool. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over wp_create_category or wp_update_tag, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a valid category id.

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