fc_create_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. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't address permissions required, whether creation is idempotent, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a term ID). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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, efficient sentence ('Create a new term/tag') with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits, usage context, and expected outputs. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective tool invocation is insufficient, especially for a creation tool in a system with multiple content types.

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%, with all parameters (title, slug, description) documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema's details. According to scoring rules, when coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 'Create a new term/tag' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('term/tag'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like fc_list_terms (list vs create) and fc_bulk_create_posts (different resource). However, it doesn't specify what a 'term/tag' is in this context (e.g., taxonomy term, content tag), which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a space), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like fc_bulk_create_posts for bulk operations. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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