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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: the reply carries an undo token that restores the deleted values, and the call is queued for human approval in Royally so nothing changes until then. Those are material operational facts not present in any structured field.

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-loaded with the delete action and its scope, followed by the undo guarantee, site context, and approval workflow. Every sentence carries information; only the parenthetical site banner is slightly redundant with the site_id enum.

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 no output schema, the description covers reversibility (undo token) and the approval gate, which are the facts an agent most needs. The remaining gap is explaining term_id resolution, which the schema leaves undocumented.

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 only 33% (only site_id documented), so the description bears the compensating weight. It clarifies the semantics of `key` by stating all values for that key are removed, but says nothing about `term_id` or what identifies a valid term, so the compensation is partial.

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 (delete) and resource (term meta), and clarifies the scope of the operation: 'every value of the key'. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like wp_delete_post_meta or wp_update_term_meta without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb, and the 'every value of the key' note clarifies that this isn't a selective delete. However, it never explicitly says when to choose it over siblings such as wp_update_term_meta or wp_delete_term, leaving routing to inference.

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