vectr_anchor

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds important nuance by defining anchors as staleness probes rather than correctness claims, and by explaining that already-attached paths are reported back rather than duplicated. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and then packs the alternative workflow, anchor semantics, and idempotency behavior into four dense sentences. Every sentence adds operational value without 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?

For a two-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and idempotency annotation, the description covers the operation's purpose, when to use it, the meaning of anchors, and the behavior on repeated invocation. No critical missing information prevents an agent from calling it correctly.

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?

The input schema already documents both required parameters with 100% coverage, including workspace-relative paths and the source of note_id. The description reinforces the semantics but does not need to add much beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: attach file paths to an existing note, with a clear purpose of flagging possibly-stale notes. It also distinguishes itself from re-storing with anchors/supersedes, helping an agent tell this operation apart from related vectr tools.

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?

It explicitly frames the tool as 'the single-call replacement for re-storing with anchors=[...] and supersedes=<note_id>' and gives the trigger condition: when you notice afterwards that a note is about a specific process/config file. This is clear when-to-use guidance and implies when the alternative workflow would be preferred.

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