art.memory.add_anchor

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'add a new style anchor' and does not disclose whether adding an existing anchor ID fails, overwrites, or duplicates, what validation occurs, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool this is a meaningful gap.

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 clear sentence with no filler or redundant elaboration. It front-loads the intended action and wastes no words.

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—10 parameters, nested objects, multiple enums, no annotations, and no output schema—the description is far too minimal. An agent is left without guidance on return values, uniqueness/id constraints, required logical relationships between fields, or error behavior. The schema covers parameter syntax but not operational context.

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 parameters and their meaning. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the operation: 'Add a new style anchor to the art memory.' It names a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling memory tools like add_reference or add_rejection, but the resource type is distinct enough to convey the core purpose.

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 does not mention prerequisites such as whether the referenced style or asset IDs must already exist, nor does it explain when an anchor should be added rather than updated or resolved.

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