transkribus_doc_deleteDelete a document from a Transkribus collection using collection and document IDs. Confirm deletion to permanently remove the document.
Delete a document from a collection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Document ID | |
| collId | Yes | Collection ID | |
| delete | No | Confirm deletion (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 convey destructiveness (destructiveHint=true), non-read-only status, and idempotency, so the description carries a lower burden. However, the description adds essentially no behavioral context beyond restating the scope, and it fails to disclose the significant quirk that the 'delete' confirmation parameter defaults to false, which may mean deletion does not occur unless explicitly confirmed.
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 focused sentence with no wasted words, and the core action is front-loaded. It is concise, though it borders on under-specification by omitting behavioral caveats.
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?
The annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers all parameters, so the operation is basically callable. The main gap is the interplay between the destructive action and the 'delete' confirmation flag, plus the lack of any statement about consequences (e.g., whether pages/transcripts are destroyed). Given no output schema, a bit more guidance would help.
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 all three parameters (id, collId, delete) documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level insight, 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 states a specific verb (delete), resource (document), and scope (from a collection), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like transkribus_coll_delete and transkribus_page_delete. However, the phrase 'from a collection' creates some ambiguity with transkribus_doc_remove_from_collection, which likely removes a document from a collection without destroying it.
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 such as transkribus_doc_remove_from_collection (non-destructive removal) or transkribus_coll_delete (deleting a whole collection). For a destructive operation, the absence of a warning or pointer to the safer alternative is a notable gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.