transkribus_doc_post_editorial_declarationCreate or update an editorial declaration for a Transkribus document by providing its document ID, collection ID, and declaration data.
Create or update the editorial declaration for a document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Document ID | |
| body | No | Editorial declaration data | |
| collId | Yes | Collection ID |
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 declare readOnlyHint=false (writes), idempotentHint=true (safe to retry), and destructiveHint=false (no destructive changes). The description's 'Create or update' aligns with these hints and adds the upsert semantics, which is marginally useful. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like authentication requirements, overwrite behavior beyond 'update', or response format, and it does not explain the open world hint. With annotations covering the basic safety profile, the description adds limited value, so a 3 is appropriate.
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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action 'Create or update' and the resource. It is appropriately short for a simple command, with no wasted words. However, it is almost too sparse, offering no structuring of the body or links to related concepts, which would aid comprehension. As conciseness, it scores well.
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 tool has no output schema, so return value behavior is unaddressed. The body parameter is an opaque object with no schema structure, and the description gives no hint about what an editorial declaration should contain. Prerequisites like document existence, permission levels, or the effect of overwriting are not mentioned. For an agent to correctly invoke this tool, it would likely need to infer the body structure from other tools or external knowledge. This is a significant gap, so a 2 is appropriate.
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%, so each parameter is already documented: id (Document ID), collId (Collection ID), body (Editorial declaration data). The description adds no further meaning beyond these labels. Most critically, the 'body' parameter is an open object with 'additionalProperties' and no structure, and the description does not clarify what an editorial declaration contains or which fields are required. Since coverage is complete but the schema itself is sparse for 'body', the description offers little extra — a baseline 3 is fair.
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 clear verb-resource pair: 'Create or update the editorial declaration for a document.' It distinguishes the target resource (editorial declaration) and scope (document). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling editdecl tools, but the name and 'for a document' make it clear this is about the document's declaration, not the declaration's features/options. A 4 is warranted because it's specific but lacks an explicit sibling contrast.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like transkribus_doc_get_editorial_declaration or transkribus_editdecl_* tools. No mention of prerequisites, whether the document must exist, or whether this replaces an existing declaration. The description provides no usage context, leaving the agent to infer when this is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.