transkribus_recog_updateModify an existing recognition model in a collection by supplying its collection ID, model ID, and updated data.
Update a recognition model in a collection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Resource ID | |
| body | Yes | Model update data | |
| collId | Yes | Collection ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description merely says 'Update', which is consistent but adds no further behavioral context, such as whether the update is a full replacement or a patch, or what happens upon success. It does not contradict 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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the purpose. It is concise and front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it is minimal and could include a bit more context without becoming verbose.
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 complexity of the body parameter (a nested object with arbitrary properties) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain expected content for body, return value, or error scenarios. The tool is part of a larger system with many sibling tools, and the description lacks connections or prerequisites.
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?
The schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (collId, id, body), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 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 'Update' and the resource 'recognition model', and specifies the context 'in a collection'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like transkribus_recog_delete or transkribus_recog_get. However, it does not elaborate on what aspects of the model can be updated, such as name or metadata, leaving some ambiguity.
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 like transkribus_model_update or transkribus_recog_add_to_collection. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing model ID, or scenarios where other tools are more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.