Update Term

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about required permissions, what fields are updatable, whether changes are destructive or reversible, how the nested 'fields' object is handled, or what side effects occur. For a mutation tool with required nested parameters, this is severely inadequate.

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 a single terse sentence, which is structurally front-loaded but far too under-specified for a mutation tool with nested parameters. Brevity here reflects missing information rather than efficient communication.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), the description is missing virtually everything else an agent needs: parameter meaning, behavioral effects, permissions, and usage context. For a required-field mutation with 0% schema description coverage, the definition is not complete enough to invoke correctly without guesswork.

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 0% and the description adds no meaning for any of the three required parameters (vid, tid, fields). It does not explain what 'vid' or 'tid' identify, what keys the nested 'fields' object accepts, or how the update is applied. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 verb and resource ('Update a taxonomy term'), so the agent knows the operation. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title with no further scope or distinction from sibling tools like update_node or update_vocabulary. It is minimally clear but adds little beyond the identifier.

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 get_term, create_term, delete_term, or other update tools. No prerequisites, alternatives, or context are provided. This is a bare operation statement with no usage direction.

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