Anchord MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and succeeds well. It discloses critical behavioral details: automatic AnchorID matching, the prerequisite of a registered source system, and the implementation detail that it wraps a batch endpoint. Missing minor details like return value format or idempotency guarantees prevent a 5.

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?

Four sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded with purpose ('Ingest a single source record'), followed by behavior (matching), prerequisites (registered source), and implementation context (wrapper). Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 4-parameter write operation with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the ingestion flow, ID resolution behavior, and prerequisites comprehensively. The only gap is the lack of description for return values or success indicators, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description references 'registered source (system)' which aligns with the system parameter, and implies the payload contains record fields, but does not add syntax details, format examples, or semantic constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 specific action (ingest), resource (single source record), and destination (Anchord). It explicitly distinguishes from batch operations by noting it 'Wraps POST /ingest/batch with a single-item array,' clearly differentiating it from batch siblings like guard_write_batch and resolve_company_batch.

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?

Provides clear prerequisites ('Requires a registered source') and implies usage context (single record vs batch via the wrapper explanation). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus similar write operations like guard_write or link_source_record, or when to prefer the batch endpoint directly.

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