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

Adds substantive context beyond the annotations: the Royally approval gate means 'nothing on the site changes until then', which is critical for a mutation tool and cannot be inferred from destructiveHint=false/true flags. It also discloses that block-level HTML tags are stripped by WP core, so the agent knows the content may be sanitized.

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-loads the core purpose and follows with HTML handling, taxonomy discovery, site context, and the approval behavior. Slightly dense with the tag enumeration, but every sentence carries actionable 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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers the crucial approval workflow, taxonomy discovery, and content sanitation. It does not mention what is returned (e.g., term ID) or behavior when a duplicate term exists, leaving minor gaps.

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 83%, so the schema already documents slug, parent, taxonomy, and description. The description mostly repeats the HTML-tag rules already present in the description parameter's schema text, adding only marginal clarification (exact tag list). Baseline 3 is appropriate when structured fields do the heavy lifting.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Create a term') and explicitly scopes it to any registered taxonomy, naming category, post_tag, and custom taxonomies as examples. This clearly separates it from the sibling wp_update_term, wp_delete_term, and 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?

Points the agent to wp_get_taxonomies to discover valid taxonomy slugs before calling, which is a concrete prerequisite. It does not explicitly state when to prefer wp_update_term over this tool for existing terms, so a full when/when-not contrast is missing.

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