transkribus_crowd_post_milestoneAdd a milestone with title and optional date to a crowd project in a collection to record progress.
Store a new milestone in the crowd project of a collection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Milestone date | |
| title | Yes | Milestone title | |
| 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 indicate non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world. The description adds no behavioral details beyond 'store', such as whether duplicates are allowed or if updates occur. It does not leverage annotations to enhance transparency.
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 efficient sentence of 12 words. It is front-loaded and concise, though it could include more context 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?
For a simple creation tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks mention of return values, side effects, or expected date formats, which would improve completeness.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters (collId, title, date). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so 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 clearly states the tool stores a new milestone in the crowd project of a collection, distinguishing it from sibling tools like transkribus_crowd_post_message. However, it lacks specificity about what a milestone represents (e.g., a date with a title).
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as prerequisites (e.g., existence of a crowd project) or constraints. The description does not mention conditions for use or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.