Repositions an anchored object on an InDesign page by setting its anchor point, offsets, and inline, above-line, or custom position.
Reposition an anchored object
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| xOffset | No | ||
| yOffset | No | ||
| itemIndex | Yes | ||
| pageIndex | Yes | ||
| spaceAbove | No | ||
| anchorPoint | No | ||
| document_id | No | Which open document to act on: a name (see document_listOpen) or a 0-based index. Defaults to the front document. | |
| anchoredPosition | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation but does not disclose permission requirements, whether offsets are relative or absolute, what happens to inline versus custom anchored objects, or whether changes are reversible. Only the bare fact of mutation is conveyed.
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 extremely short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, this brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency, since critical invocation details are absent.
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 an eight-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the four-word description is grossly inadequate. An agent cannot reliably infer coordinate semantics, enum meanings, or required context from it.
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 only 13%, with seven of eight parameters undocumented. The description adds no meaning beyond the tool name, leaving xOffset, yOffset, spaceAbove, anchorPoint, anchoredPosition, pageIndex, and itemIndex without explanation.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Reposition an anchored object'), which is clearer than the name alone. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like anchoredObject_setProperties or anchoredObject_create, so an agent cannot tell from the description why it would choose this one.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as anchoredObject_setProperties or transform_* tools. No prerequisites, no exclusions, and no context about when repositioning is appropriate are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.