Update a WordPress taxonomy term by ID, changing its name, slug, parent, or description for any taxonomy on a selected site.
Update a term in any taxonomy
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Term ID | |
| name | No | Term name | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| slug | No | URL slug | |
| parent | No | Parent term ID | |
| taxonomy | Yes | Taxonomy name | |
| description | No | Term description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.4.0Input schema / properties / siteAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Site id (see list_sites)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "taxonomy",
- "id"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "taxonomy",
+ "id"
+]v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether this is a partial or full update, what happens to fields omitted from the call, whether slug/name collisions error out, or what permission level is required — all critical for a mutation tool.
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?
A single short sentence with no filler, and the verb+resource lead is front-loaded. It could be tightened only marginally; the phrase 'in any taxonomy' is the one part that carries real information.
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?
A mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema needs the description to explain update semantics, required context (site + taxonomy + id), and side effects. None of that is present, so it is not complete enough for correct 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 7 parameters (id, name, site, slug, parent, taxonomy, description). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond 'any taxonomy', so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (Update) and resource (a term) with scope (any taxonomy), so the agent can tell it is a mutation on a taxonomy term. However, it does not differentiate from close siblings like wp_update_tag, wp_update_category, or mcp_create_term/mcp_delete_term, leaving the agent to infer which term type maps to this tool.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as mcp_create_term for new terms or mcp_delete_term for removal. Usage is only implied by the word 'Update', which is not enough given the dense sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.