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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: the deletion is routed through Royally and is held pending human approval, so nothing changes on the site until then. That is important context an agent cannot derive from the annotations. It still doesn't say whether an approved delete is permanent or whether terms can be reassigned/restored.

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 that front-load the action and then the approval caveat; little waste. The parenthetical site hint slightly duplicates the site_id enum description, keeping it from a 5.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should say what the caller gets back — presumably a pending change/receipt retrievable via mcp_get_change — but it doesn't. It also never states the effect on posts currently assigned to the term, which matters for a destructive taxonomy operation.

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 67% schema description coverage, taxonomy and site_id are already documented in the schema; the description only loosely reinforces the taxonomy concept via 'any registered taxonomy'. The required `id` parameter has no description anywhere, so its meaning (term ID vs. slug) is ambiguous and the description doesn't compensate.

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+resource ('Delete a term') and scope ('any registered taxonomy'), which cleanly separates it from sibling write tools such as wp_delete_term_meta or wp_update_term. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative the way the top-scoring examples do.

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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this over wp_update_term, wp_delete_term_meta, or wp_delete_post, nor any stated preconditions (e.g. what happens to posts assigned to the term). Usage is only inferable from the tool name.

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