Apply a specific paragraph style to selected text within a text frame in an Adobe InDesign document.
Apply a paragraph style to text
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endIndex | No | End character index (optional) | |
| pageIndex | No | Page index | |
| styleName | Yes | Paragraph style name | |
| frameIndex | Yes | Text frame index | |
| startIndex | No | Start character index (optional) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the basic action and does not disclose side effects, whether it modifies the document, error behavior if the style does not exist, or any permissions required. This is a significant gap 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 concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it may be under-specified given the tool's 5 parameters, but from a pure conciseness standpoint it is efficient and clear.
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 tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is very brief and does not cover return values, side effects, or conditions under which it should be used. It is not complete enough for an agent to use the tool confidently without additional assumptions.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description 'Apply a paragraph style to text' adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The schema already provides descriptions for each parameter, and the description does not explain relationships between parameters (e.g., startIndex/endIndex scope) or provide usage context.
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 'Apply a paragraph style to text' is a clear verb+resource statement. It specifies the action (apply) and the object (paragraph style), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like create_paragraph_style and list_styles, which handle creation and listing respectively.
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 vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an open document, existing text frame) or any exclusions. There is no reference to sibling tools or scenarios where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.