Anchord MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It successfully communicates critical behavioral traits: soft-delete (not hard deletion), idempotency, and specific HTTP return code behavior (200). It could improve by clarifying whether the AnchorID and source record entities themselves remain intact or if there are cascade effects.

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, zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core action (soft-delete the link), while the second provides essential idempotency context. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple 2-parameter schema with 100% coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the operation's purpose and key behavioral characteristics (soft-delete, idempotency). Minor gap: could clarify impact on parent entities (whether they persist after unlinking) and response body structure.

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%, providing complete parameter documentation. The description maps domain concepts ('AnchorID', 'source record') to the parameter names, but does not add syntax details, format constraints, or examples beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 explicitly states 'Soft-delete the link between an AnchorID and a source record' — providing specific verb (soft-delete), resource (the link), and scope. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tool link_source_record through the inverse operation naming and soft-delete specificity.

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 notes idempotency ('calling on an already-unlinked pair returns 200'), which provides implicit usage guidance that the operation is safe to retry. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus link_source_record or other alternatives, and omits prerequisites or conditions.

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