transkribus_label_updateUpdate an existing label's name or color by its unique ID, providing new values for a quick correction.
Update an existing label by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Resource ID | |
| name | No | Updated label name | |
| color | No | Updated label color (hex code) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds no further behavioral context such as return values, permission requirements, or effect scope. The agent cannot infer key details like whether the update returns the modified label.
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 directly states the purpose. It is concise and front-loaded with no extraneous information.
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?
Despite having only 3 parameters and no output schema, the description omits critical details such as return value, error behavior, and whether partial updates are allowed. For a CRUD update tool, more context is needed for an agent to use it correctly.
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 (id, name, color). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
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 ('Update') and resource ('existing label') with the method ('by ID'). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like create, delete, list, etc.
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_label_create or transkribus_label_delete. No explicit context about usage conditions or exclusions is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.