update_taxonomy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies mutation but doesn't explain what happens to existing fields if omitted, whether the update is partial or full replacement, auth requirements, or side effects on dependent resources. It mentions only 'name, description, etc.' without elaborating on behavior beyond the obvious.

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 one short sentence, efficient and to the point. It front-loads the verb and resource. However, the 'etc.' is ambiguous and could be replaced with more concrete fields, but given the simplicity, it remains 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?

This is an update (mutation) tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description only minimally identifies the action and fields. For a tool with 3 parameters, it lacks guidance on required versus optional parameters, partial update semantics, and potential errors. It is a minimal viable description but clear gaps exist.

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 schema description coverage is only 33% (only the 'id' param is described). The description adds that 'name' and 'description' are updatable taxonomy fields, providing some context beyond the schema's bare property names. However, it doesn't clarify whether 'id' is a numeric ID or string slug, nor any constraints on name/description (e.g., uniqueness, length). The 'etc.' is vague. Overall, it partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 clearly states the tool updates a taxonomy and lists example fields (name, description). It uses a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_taxonomy, delete_taxonomy, and update_taxonomy_tag, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate those.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., taxonomy must exist), typical use cases, or why one might choose update_taxonomy over update_taxonomy_tag or bulk_update_tags.

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