transkribus_editdecl_post_optionAdd a new option to an existing editorial declaration feature in a Transkribus collection. Provide the collection ID, feature ID, and option value to store it.
Store a new option for an editorial declaration feature.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| collId | Yes | Collection ID | |
| featId | Yes | Feature ID to add the option to | |
| option | Yes | Option value |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). Description adds no behavioral context beyond 'Store', such as what happens if the option already exists, authorization needs, or side effects. With annotations present, the description could still add value but does not.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the key action and resource. It wastes no words. However, it is borderline too terse; a bit more context could improve usability without sacrificing 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 the tool's domain (editorial declarations) and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the relationship between options and features, the expected return value, or how the option value should be formatted. An AI agent would lack sufficient context to use this tool effectively.
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%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 because schema already covers parameter semantics adequately.
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 title and description clearly indicate the tool creates/stores a new option for an editorial declaration feature. The verb 'Store' and resource 'new option' are specific. However, 'editorial declaration feature' is somewhat vague, but it distinguishes from sibling tools like transkribus_editdecl_post_feature which handle features rather than options.
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 such as transkribus_editdecl_post_feature or transkribus_editdecl_delete_option. No mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions. Without this, an AI agent may struggle to choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.