transkribus_coll_add_docAdd an existing document to a collection by providing collection and document IDs, with an option to move instead of copying the document.
Add an existing document to a collection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Document ID | |
| docId | Yes | Document ID | |
| collId | Yes | Collection ID | |
| moveTo | No | Move instead of copy (default false) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.1.0v3.0.0v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, which covers the basic safety profile. The description adds little behavioral context beyond what the annotations and title already imply; it does not mention copy-versus-move behavior, permissions, or duplicate handling. It is consistent with the annotations, so there is no contradiction.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It communicates the core operation efficiently. It is concise without being a bare tautology.
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 simple mutation with two required integer IDs and one optional flag, the schema and annotations are mostly sufficient for invoking the tool. However, the description omits any note about return values, duplicate membership behavior, or the copy-versus-move default, and no output schema exists to fill that gap. A bit more context would make it more complete.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds slight meaning by emphasizing that the document must already exist, but it does not clarify the relationship between the optional 'id' and required 'docId', nor does it explain the moveTo semantics beyond what the schema already states.
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 clearly states a specific action: add an existing document to a collection. The verb 'add' and the resources 'document' and 'collection' are clear, and 'existing' distinguishes this from creation or upload tools. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling transkribus_coll_add_docs, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools such as transkribus_coll_add_docs for adding multiple documents, transkribus_coll_remove_doc for removal, or the various document creation/upload tools. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.