That's a good way to put it. And Nagel's footnote is hilarious and on target.

Also:

The anti-realist denies objective reality is a meaningful concept, judges beliefs by some other standard like consistency or pragmatic usefulness, and if happy to endorse them if they satisfy it.

I just want to point out to people in this thread how not bad philosophically sophisticated metaphysical anti-realism is. The right set of epistemic principles is isomorphic to "correspondence with reality". What matters is which beliefs we endorse not what we mean by "belief". Similarly, a deflated concept of "reality" takes you to more or less the same place as the anti-realists. The problem is the anti-realists who endorse poor strategies of belief formation.