Update a term

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

The description discloses a meaningful side effect: 'Changing a slug changes the term archive URL.' This goes beyond the annotations, which only indicate it is a mutation (readOnlyHint: false) and not idempotent. However, it does not clarify whether the update is partial (PATCH-like) or full replacement, nor does it mention any other consequences of updating fields like parent.

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 two short sentences with no redundant words. The core action and field list are front-loaded, and the notable side effect is added without bloat. It is efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose but leaves out important context such as usage guidance, whether it is a partial update, and how to handle the default taxonomy. The schema covers parameter details, but the description does not fully equip an agent to decide when and how to use it 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?

All parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema already explains each field. The description only lists the fields without adding semantic detail, such as how 'meta' interacts with 'show_in_rest' or the behavior of 'parent' when set. It adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 verb ('Update'), the resource ('a term'), and enumerates the updatable fields ('name, slug, description, parent or meta') and scope ('in any taxonomy'). This clearly distinguishes it from get_term, create_term, and delete_term.

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 implies usage for modifying an existing term via the required 'id' parameter, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., instead of deleting and recreating a term), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It only says 'in any taxonomy' without guidance on when this is appropriate.

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