As transmitted, the headword phrase is meaningless. It appears in the Appendix Proverbiorum (3.56) -- and nowhere else -- but with a different noun (kw=nos, "pinecone") and with a different version of the verb form (a)rtocu/ei, i.e. indicative rather than the Suda's subjunctive).
Bernhardy commented: de quo proverbio nihil constat. Perhaps (nevertheless) the verb is a corruption of a)nticu/ei (or the subjunctive a)nticu/h|) "scratches in return". There is a proverb about donkeys, saying in effect, "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours": see tau 767 (also xi 91). Perhaps also ko/nos -- which as it stands could be a variant, attested elsewhere, of ko/nnos, "trinket" (kappa 2047) -- hides an original o)/nos "donkey" (with kai\ in crasis?).
The corruption would have to have occurred earlier than the common source of the Suda and the Appendix Proverbiorum. If this interpretation is accepted, the gloss makes sense.