transkribus_doc_update_metadata_v2Update a document's metadata in Transkribus using the v2 endpoint. Provide collection ID, document ID, and new metadata to apply changes.
Update document metadata using the v2 endpoint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Document ID | |
| body | Yes | Document metadata v2 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 carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) and the description adds no behavioral context beyond them. Critically, it does not disclose whether the free-form body performs a partial merge or full replacement of existing metadata, which is essential behavioral information for a mutation tool with no output schema.
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 one compact sentence with zero filler and the verb is front-loaded. But the brevity is spent restating the tool name—'Update document metadata using the v2 endpoint' adds almost nothing beyond the title 'Update Document Metadata v2'. This is under-specification, not earned conciseness.
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 tool with a free-form nested body object, no output schema, and an ambiguous version distinction from a sibling, the description is incomplete. Missing information includes acceptable metadata fields, update semantics (merge vs replace), prerequisites (document ownership/permissions), and what distinguishes v2 from v1. An agent cannot reliably construct a correct request from this definition alone.
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 the baseline is 3—each parameter has a basic description ('Document ID', 'Collection ID', 'Document metadata v2 data'). However, the body parameter is an opaque free-form object (additionalProperties: {}), and neither the schema nor the description enumerates valid keys, expected structure, or data types, leaving the most important parameter genuinely underspecified.
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 ('Update') and resource ('document metadata'), and the phrase 'v2 endpoint' distinguishes it from the sibling transkribus_doc_update_metadata. However, it never explains what v2 means functionally—what fields, formats, or behaviors differ from v1—so the differentiation is nominal rather than substantive.
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 its close siblings: transkribus_doc_update_metadata (v1), transkribus_coll_update_metadata, transkribus_upload_update_metadata, or transkribus_upload_bulk_update_doc_metadata. The agent is left to guess which endpoint is appropriate for a given task, with zero context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.