Update a term

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

Annotations already establish the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: 'Changing a slug changes the term archive URL' discloses a URL/SEO side effect of a specific field. It stops short of covering capability requirements or reversibility, but with annotations present, the added context is meaningful.

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 sentences with no filler: the first front-loads verb, resource, and field scope; the second adds the single most important behavioral caveat. Every word earns its place for an 8-parameter tool.

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 8-parameter complexity, the schema is rich enough to cover parameter semantics and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description does not need to explain return values or basic mutation behavior. Minor gaps remain (no capability/permission note, no pointer to discover_taxonomies for valid taxonomy slugs), but nothing blocks safe selection and invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters, including site_id's multi-site behavior and parent's hierarchical-taxonomy restriction. The description only echoes the field list already present in the schema and adds no new parameter-level meaning, landing at the baseline of 3.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Update') with a precise resource ('a term') and enumerates the mutable fields (name, slug, description, parent, meta) plus the scope ('in any taxonomy'). The term-specific fields clearly differentiate it from the many other update_* siblings like update_content, update_menu, or update_user.

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 usage context is implied through the verb and title — modify an existing term — and the 'in any taxonomy' scope statement adds context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives (e.g., create_term for new terms, delete_term for removal) are named.

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