transkribus_job_updateUpdate an existing job's status or description using its ID. Modify job properties directly to keep workflow state current.
Update properties of an existing job.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Resource ID | |
| status | No | New job status | |
| description | No | Updated job description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate idempotent, non-destructive, non-read-only behavior. The description 'update properties' is consistent but adds no additional behavioral context. No contradictions.
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 that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.
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 simple update with three parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate. However, it lacks details on allowed status values and behavior of updates (e.g., overwrite or append).
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 each parameter. The tool description does not add further semantic detail; baseline score 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 tool updates properties of an existing job. It distinguishes from sibling tools like job_create, job_get, job_list, job_kill, job_undo by using the verb 'update', but does not specify which properties beyond what is in the schema.
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 alternatives like job_create or job_undo. The description lacks context for proper tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.