Mark Anchors Stale

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), so the description's job is to add context. It does not say whether the statuses are computed internally from validation/git checks or supplied by the caller, nor what side effects a status change has (e.g. vector index implications). The one descriptor-like phrase is ambiguous rather than informative.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with no filler; the batch-mutation intent is front-loaded. Its brevity is close to the right size, though the trailing clause adds ambiguity rather than precision.

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?

For a mutating, batch, 0%-documented-schema tool, the description leaves out the critical use_test_db flag, the full set of allowed statuses, and what the updates are based on. An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but the input side is substantially under-covered.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it only partly does: 'multiple anchors' implies the array and 'stale or invalidated' names two enum values. It never mentions use_test_db, a boolean that silently redirects writes to a test database, nor the id/status shape of each update item.

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 names a concrete verb+resource: batch-updating the status of multiple anchors. It is clearly distinguishable from the other sibling tools, none of which operate on 'anchors'. The scope is slightly diluted by the trailing 'based on validation rules or git history checks', which blurs whether the tool performs checks or just applies given statuses.

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 phrase 'based on validation rules or git history checks' implies a context (after validation or after inspecting git history), but gives no explicit when/when-not guidance. It never mentions the closest-sounding sibling, check_entry_staleness, so an agent gets no routing signal between the two.

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