Create a custom color swatch in Adobe InDesign, specifying name, color values (CMYK, RGB, or LAB), and spot color option.
Create a new color swatch
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Swatch name | |
| spotColor | No | Create as spot color | |
| colorModel | No | CMYK | |
| colorValues | Yes | Color values array [C,M,Y,K] or [R,G,B] |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'create' but does not mention side effects, whether it modifies the current document, permission requirements, or behavior on duplicate names. This is under-specified for a mutation tool.
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 with no filler, making it extremely concise and front-loaded. It earns its place without wasting 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?
The description is minimal and does not explain the dependency between colorValues and colorModel, nor mention return values or document impact. With no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters, this is inadequate for a complete understanding.
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 already provides descriptions for name, spotColor, and colorValues, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. However, the colorModel parameter lacks a description, and the relationship between colorValues and colorModel (especially LAB) is not clarified, leaving some gaps.
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 'Create a new color swatch' uses the specific verb 'create' with the resource 'color swatch', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_rectangle or apply_color. It is unambiguous about the tool's function.
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 apply_color or list_color_swatches. It lacks any contextual usage notes or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.