transkribus_doc_move_pages_by_image_namesRearrange pages in a Transkribus document by mapping image names to their new order. Provide collection ID, document ID, and a body with image name mappings to apply the move.
Move pages within a document based on image names.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Document ID | |
| body | Yes | Image name mapping data | |
| 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 indicate readOnlyHint=false (modifies data) and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description only states the action but adds no additional behavioral context such as whether the operation is reversible, what happens on error, or how the mapping is applied. The description adds minimal value beyond annotations.
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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points or examples) that could improve readability. It is efficient but minimal.
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 tool has three parameters (one a complex object), no output schema, and no annotations indicating side effects, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the format of the body object, expected behavior when image names are missing, or any return value. An agent would need additional documentation to use this tool correctly.
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% (all three parameters have descriptions). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; 'body' is described as 'Image name mapping data' which is still vague. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already provides descriptions.
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 action (move), resource (pages within a document), and method (based on image names). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like transkribus_page_move, which moves individual pages by ID. The verb+resource+scope is specific and unambiguous.
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 such as transkribus_page_move or transkribus_doc_get_image_names. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. No exclusions or when-not-to-use are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.