Creates a new Illustrator document with specified width, height, color mode, artboard count, and name, letting you set up canvas dimensions and color settings in one call.
Illustrator: new document — width/height px (pt), color mode rgb|cmyk, number of artboards, name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| width | No | ||
| height | No | ||
| artboards | No | ||
| colorMode | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds nothing beyond that. It does not say whether an existing document is replaced, whether a new window/tab appears, or what the call returns — critical for a creation tool with no output schema.
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?
A single telegraphic sentence, front-loaded with the app and action, with no filler. The density is efficient but borders on cryptic in the units clause.
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?
For a simple non-destructive creation call with annotation coverage and no output schema, the description names every input. The remaining gaps — default values, units resolution and the returned document handle — are real but modest.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does map each of the five params (name, width, height, colorMode, artboards). However, the units are ambiguous — 'px (pt)' could mean pixels with point fallback or either depending on context — and no defaults are given for width, height or artboards even though all five params are optional.
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?
States a concrete verb and resource — 'Illustrator: new document' — and enumerates the fields it accepts, so the agent can distinguish it from ps_newDocument and pr_newProject by the app prefix. It stops short of full sibling differentiation (e.g. vs ai_openFile or ai_saveDocument) but the creation intent is unmistakable.
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 statement of when to use this versus ai_openFile, or what happens if a document is already open. The agent must infer that this creates a fresh document rather than modifying the current one, and gets no prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.