transkribus_credit_updateUpdate an existing credit package by its ID to modify its label or amount, ensuring account credit details stay current.
Update an existing credit package by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Resource ID | |
| label | No | Updated label | |
| amount | No | Updated amount |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which conflict with the mutation nature of 'update', but the description aligns with the annotation by not claiming destructive behavior. However, it adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide (e.g., permissions, side effects on associated jobs).
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 waste. It is concise but could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose.
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 simplicity of the tool (3 parameters, no output schema, annotations present), the description is minimal. It lacks context about return values, usage lifecycle, or relationships to sibling tools, leaving gaps for an AI agent.
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%, with each parameter having a basic description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond restating that it updates by ID. With high coverage, a score of 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 clearly states the verb 'update', the resource 'credit package', and the identifier method 'by ID'. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'transkribus_credit_create' and 'transkribus_credit_list'.
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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., credit_create for new packages, credit_manage for broader operations) or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.