Create a term

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds the non-obvious behavior that WordPress rejects duplicate names, and suggests a pre-check. This is valuable context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't mention potential permissions or side effects, but the duplicate rejection and pre-check are sufficient credit.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The first states the purpose, and the second delivers the critical caveat and alternative in a front-loaded manner. Every word earns its place, and the structure is optimal for quick parsing.

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 7 parameters (all well-documented) and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and the most important edge case (duplicate names). It doesn't specify the success return format, but for a create operation this is often implied. The description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly under typical conditions.

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% coverage with every parameter richly described (e.g., parent specified as hierarchical-only, meta limited to show_in_rest keys). The description adds a note about the name parameter's duplicate risk and suggests a workaround, which supplements the schema. This goes beyond the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 states a specific action 'Create a term in any taxonomy' with a clear verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_terms, update_term, and delete_term by focusing on creation. The wording is unambiguous and leaves no doubt about what the tool does.

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 explicitly warns about the duplicate rejection behavior and advises using list_terms first when duplication is a concern. This gives both a clear when-to-use context (create a new term) and a when-not-to/alternative (check with list_terms before). This is exactly the kind of guidance an agent needs to select this tool over alternatives.

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