transkribus_crowd_delete_messagesDelete messages from a collection's crowd project using the collection ID, or remove a specific message by providing its message ID.
Delete messages from the crowd project of a collection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Specific message ID to delete | |
| collId | Yes | Collection ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the behavior is partially disclosed. The description adds that messages are deleted from a crowd project, but does not elaborate on side effects, authorization needs, or irreversibility beyond what annotations provide.
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 sentence, concise and front-loaded. However, it is somewhat vague and missing important details, but it remains efficient without unnecessary verbiage.
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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the effect of omitting the optional id, whether deletion is permanent, or what authorization is required. Given the tool's complexity (destructive, batch possible), more context is needed.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (collId as 'Collection ID', id as 'Specific message ID to delete'). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify, for example, that omitting id might delete all messages or that deletion is scoped to a collection.
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 'Delete messages from the crowd project of a collection.' It uses a specific verb (Delete) and resource (messages), and distinguishes from siblings like transkribus_crowd_delete_milestones (which deletes milestones) and transkribus_crowd_post_message (which creates messages).
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to delete a specific message vs. all messages, or prerequisites like collection ownership). Sibling tools such as transkribus_crowd_post_message are not mentioned, nor are usage contexts or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.