Anchord MCP

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses critical idempotency guarantee and 'reactivate' behavior (implying links can exist in deactivated states). Missing: return value structure, error conditions (e.g., invalid UUIDs), authorization requirements, and whether this operation triggers side effects like audit logging.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. First sentence front-loads the core operation; second sentence provides the critical idempotency guarantee. Every word 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?

Appropriate for a 4-parameter linking operation with complete schema coverage. Core behavior and safety properties (idempotency) are covered. Deducted one point for missing return value description and error scenarios, which are important for a mutation tool with no output schema or annotations.

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 has 100% description coverage, establishing baseline of 3. Description maps 'entity_id' to 'AnchorID' conceptually, adding minor semantic value, but does not expand on parameter formats, validation rules, or business logic constraints beyond the schema definitions.

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?

Clear specific action ('Create or reactivate') with explicit resources ('link between an AnchorID and a source record'). The 'reactivate' verb implicitly distinguishes from sibling tool 'unlink_source_record', indicating this handles both new and restored links.

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 implicit guidance through the idempotency note ('calling twice returns the existing link'), suggesting safe retry patterns. However, lacks explicit comparison to sibling 'unlink_source_record' or guidance on when to use versus other entity management tools.

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