transkribus_editdecl_post_featureStore a new editorial declaration feature in a collection by supplying a title and an optional description. Use this to add metadata or annotations to a Transkribus collection.
Store a new editorial declaration feature in a collection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Feature title | |
| collId | Yes | Collection ID | |
| description | No | Feature description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and open world. The description's verb 'Store' adds minimal context. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, authorization needs) are disclosed beyond the 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 9-word sentence with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, achieving maximum 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?
Given no output schema, the description should explain return values or outcomes. It does not. It also misses context about prerequisites (e.g., collection must exist), relationship to editorial declarations, or distinction from features vs options. Incomplete for a create tool with siblings.
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 schema already explains all parameters. The tool description adds no further meaning or constraints (e.g., uniqueness of title, relationship to collection). Baseline score of 3 applies as schema does the heavy lifting.
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 'Store' and the resource 'editorial declaration feature' in a collection. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like transkribus_editdecl_post_option or transkribus_doc_post_editorial_declaration, so an agent may not know when to use this specific tool.
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. No 'when', 'when not', or mention of alternative tools. The agent is left without context for selecting this tool over siblings like transkribus_editdecl_post_option.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.