Update WordPress Category

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it's a potentially destructive but idempotent write. The description adds the scope of updatable fields and notes the return type, but does not disclose edge cases like parent self-reference or consequences for child categories. This is acceptable given annotation coverage, but not rich beyond it.

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?

The description is compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a clear 'Args' list, and a 'Returns' line. Every element serves a purpose, with no redundant fluff or excessive detail.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description adequately covers essential context: what can be updated, required id, optional fields, output format options, and the return type. It does not go into error scenarios or edge cases, but for an update tool of this scope, the description is nearly complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, meaning each parameter is already well-documented in the schema. The description's 'Args' section repeats schema info (types, optionality, response_format default) without adding new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic load.

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?

The description explicitly states 'Update an existing category's name, slug, description, or parent,' which clearly identifies the action (update) and the resource (category), and lists the specific mutable fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wp_create_category or wp_update_tag.

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?

The description clearly implies use for existing categories by saying 'existing category,' which provides context for when to use it (updating, not creating). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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