wordpress_update_term

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states it's an update operation (implying mutation), but doesn't disclose permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to unspecified term fields. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes directly to stating the tool's purpose.

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 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, usage context, and expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about the three parameters (taxonomy, termId, updates)—it doesn't explain what taxonomies are valid, what termId refers to, or what fields can be in the updates object. It fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('a term in a taxonomy'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'wordpress_create_term' (creation) and 'wordpress_delete_term' (deletion), but doesn't specify what aspects of a term can be updated or differentiate from other update tools like 'wordpress_update_category' (a specific taxonomy type).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing term ID), compare to siblings like 'wordpress_update_category' (for categories specifically) or 'wordpress_create_term' (for new terms), or indicate scenarios where it's appropriate. Usage is implied only by the verb 'Update'.

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