transkribus_coll_modifyUpdate collection metadata: rename or change its description using the collection ID. Provide new values to apply changes.
Modify the properties of a collection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| collId | Yes | Collection ID | |
| collName | No | New collection name | |
| description | No | New description |
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?
The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the annotations. It does not mention permission requirements, whether only provided fields are updated, side effects on existing collection data, or what happens if the collection does not exist. Annotations indicate a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, but the description itself contributes no operational context.
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, waste-free sentence with the action front-loaded. It is concise but under-specified: it could list the modifiable properties or clarify the update semantics without becoming verbose. That leve is appropriate for a simple update tool, so a 4 is warranted.
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?
Given the large sibling list and the existence of transkribus_coll_update_metadata, the description is not complete enough for reliable tool selection. It lacks usage context, alternative routing, and any statement about what fields are affected. The schema helps with parameters, but the description does not provide enough surrounding context to fully disambiguate this operation.
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 input schema already documents collId, collName, and description. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, but with full schema coverage the baseline 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 clear action and target: 'Modify the properties of a collection.' It is not a tautology and an agent can tell it operates on collection-level settings rather than pages, documents, or recognition models. However, it does not distinguish this from overlapping siblings like transkribus_coll_update_metadata, so it falls 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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to choose coll_modify over coll_update_metadata, coll_create, coll_duplicate, or other collection-related tools, so an agent must infer usage from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.