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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation profile is known; the description goes further by disclosing that block-level HTML is stripped from description, and critically that the operation is queued for human approval in Royally so nothing changes immediately. That approval-workflow disclosure is essential context an agent cannot get from the annotations alone.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence contributes distinct value (HTML handling, sibling pairing, approval workflow). The SEO-meta parenthetical is slightly verbose but still informative, so the text is efficient though not maximally tight.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, HTML constraints, a complementary tool, and the critical human-approval behavior. Remaining gaps (e.g. how parent affects hierarchical taxonomies, what a successful queued response looks like) are minor given the schema and annotations already in place.

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 57%; the enum site_id, taxonomy, and description are documented in schema. The description adds useful meaning for the description field (inline HTML allowed, block tags stripped) and ties name/slug to rename/slug operations, but says nothing about id, parent, or site_id beyond what the schema already provides. Marginal value over the structured fields.

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 term in any taxonomy') and enumerates the concrete operations it covers (rename, edit description, change slug). This clearly separates it from wp_create_term / wp_delete_term siblings and from wp_update_term_meta, which handles meta rather than the term itself.

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?

Gives explicit use cases (rename a tag/category, edit description, change slug) and names the complementary sibling wp_update_term_meta along with the reason to reach for it (SEO data lives in wp_termmeta). Clear context, though it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g. creating new terms).

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