set_anchor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the most important non-obvious behavior: the anchor persists and is applied to every later generation. However, it says nothing about whether setting an anchor replaces a previous one, whether it is reversible, or what permissions/limits apply, which are material for a state-changing tool.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the action and then explains the downstream effect; there is no filler. It could be marginally tighter, but every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavioral context, and it covers purpose and effect well. It leaves gaps on parameter meanings (project, asset format) and on edge cases such as an already-existing anchor, which matters for a tool whose whole point is persistent state.

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 only 33% (only 'stage' is documented). The description adds the qualifier that the asset must be 'approved', which is real semantic value for the asset parameter, but it says nothing about the asset identifier format or the 'project' parameter at all, so the low coverage is largely uncompensated.

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?

"Mark an approved asset as the anchor" gives a specific verb and resource, and the following clause explains what an anchor actually does (build_prompt attaches it to every later generation). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like add_reference or build_prompt without opening a schema.

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 establishes the precondition (asset must be approved) and the downstream consequence via build_prompt, which gives clear context for when to call it. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating when-not to use it, so it does not reach the top tier.

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