Save the current InDesign document, optionally specifying a new file path to save as a different file.
Save the current document
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "save_document"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filePath | No | Optional: Save as new file path |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that saving overwrites the existing file, what happens when filePath is provided, or whether any prompts or confirmations occur. The description is too thin to inform the agent about side effects.
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, front-loaded sentence that uses minimal words to convey the core action. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff.
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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should disclose return behavior and side effects. It only states the action, leaving out important context like overwriting behavior and what the tool returns on success or failure. The parameter behavior is only visible in the schema, not the description.
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% because the only parameter (filePath) has a description. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The schema already explains that filePath is for saving to a new path.
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 uses a specific verb ('save') and names the resource ('current document'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like export_pdf, package_document, and close_document. The purpose is immediately obvious.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as export_pdf or package_document. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., an open document) or scenarios where save is preferred over export.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.