transkribus_editdecl_delete_featureDelete an editorial declaration feature from a Transkribus collection by providing the collection ID and feature ID to remove.
Delete an editorial declaration feature from a collection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Feature ID (alternative) | |
| collId | Yes | Collection ID | |
| featId | Yes | Feature ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not explain side effects, permissions required, or what happens upon deletion (e.g., permanent removal, cascade effects). No contradiction with 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 concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly expanded to include context without becoming verbose. Front-loaded with the key action.
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 deletion tool with no output schema and rich sibling tools, the description lacks completeness. It does not mention that the feature must exist, the relationship to editorial declarations, or any preconditions. Minimal contextual information.
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 three parameters (collId, featId, id). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 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 action ('Delete'), the resource ('editorial declaration feature'), and the scope ('from a collection'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'transkribus_editdecl_list_features' and 'transkribus_editdecl_post_feature' by specifying deletion.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'transkribus_editdecl_delete_option' for deleting options, or 'transkribus_doc_get_editorial_declaration' for viewing). The description lacks context on prerequisites or consequences.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.