Update an existing WordPress category's name, slug, parent, or description using its site and category ID.
Update a category
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Category ID | |
| name | No | Category name | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| slug | No | URL slug | |
| parent | No | Parent category ID | |
| description | No | 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: -[
- "id"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "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 behavioral burden, but it discloses nothing beyond the mutation verb. It does not state required permissions, whether updates are partial or destructive, what happens to omitted fields, or any side effects of changing a category.
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 only three words and gives no useful structure or front-loaded context for a six-parameter mutation tool. It is not verbose, but it is severely under-specified rather than appropriately concise.
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 six-parameter category-mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly empty. The schema covers parameter names, but the description provides no behavioral context, no usage context, and no indication of what the update operation affects.
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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents all six parameters (id, name, site, slug, parent, description). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline when schema coverage is high.
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 clear verb+resource combination ('Update a category'), so the agent knows this mutates an existing category rather than creating, deleting, or listing one. It does not differentiate from related siblings such as wp_update_tag, mcp_update_term, or woo_update_category, so it falls short of a 5.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternatives. It only implies that the tool is for updating an existing category, leaving routing decisions entirely to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.