transkribus_editdecl_delete_optionDeletes a specified option from an editorial declaration in Transkribus, using collection and option IDs to clean up unwanted choices.
Delete an option from an editorial declaration feature.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Option ID (alternative) | |
| collId | Yes | Collection ID | |
| optionId | Yes | Option 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 provide destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description states 'delete,' which aligns with destructiveness but adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., what happens if option is in use, or if deletion is permanent). With annotations present, the description adds minimal additional value.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource.
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 description is very brief for a delete operation with no output schema. It lacks context about the editorial declaration system, relationships between options and features, or error conditions. However, annotations and schema cover basic requirements, making it adequate but not complete.
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%, so all three parameters are described in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying the difference between optionId and id or providing usage context. 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 clearly states the verb 'delete,' the resource 'option,' and the context 'editorial declaration feature.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like transkribus_editdecl_delete_feature and transkribus_editdecl_post_option, providing specificity.
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, lacks prerequisites, and does not mention when not to use it. Among sibling tools, there is no explicit comparison or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.