transkribus_upload_update_metadataUpdate an existing upload's metadata by supplying its upload ID and key-value pairs. Modify resource details to keep collection information accurate.
Update metadata for an existing upload.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| collId | No | Collection ID | |
| metadata | No | Metadata key-value pairs to update | |
| uploadId | Yes | Resource 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 readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description merely says 'Update metadata,' adding no behavioral details such as whether metadata is merged or replaced, or what response to expect. With annotations present, the description contributes little extra transparency.
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, which is concise but lacks necessary details. It is not overly verbose, but it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.
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 has three parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the effect of the update (e.g., overwrite vs. merge), the expected metadata format, or any side effects, leaving the agent underinformed.
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 all three parameters ('Resource ID', 'Collection ID', 'Metadata key-value pairs to update'). The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.
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 'metadata for an existing upload,' making the purpose straightforward. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like transkribus_doc_update_metadata or transkribus_coll_update_metadata, which also update metadata on different entities.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.