vectr_unanchor

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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description explains exactly what idempotency means here: never-anchored paths are reported back, not treated as failures. It also discloses the exact-string comparison contract and the effect on staleness checks, adding substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotation flags.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: core action, inverse relationship, use cases, idempotency semantics, and comparison behavior. The most identifying information is front-loaded, and the phrasing is dense without being bloated.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers all operational aspects an agent needs: what it does, when to use it, what to expect from idempotency, and how path matching works. Nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: anchors are workspace-relative paths, comparison is exact-string on the spelling used at anchor time, and note_id refers to an existing note from vectr_recall. This extra context helps the agent construct correct arguments without opening the schema.

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 specific verb ('Remove'), a specific resource (file paths from an existing note's anchor set), and identifies the operation codename (UPG-ANCHOR-DETACH). It explicitly positions itself as the inverse of vectr_anchor, making sibling differentiation immediate and unambiguous.

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 gives concrete when-to-use conditions: discovering a note was anchored to the wrong file, or when the anchored file's relevance has gone away. It also clarifies what the operation does not mean (never a claim the note is wrong), which prevents misuse in unrelated correction scenarios.

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