Set multiple properties for anchored objects in an InDesign document. Update positioning, alignment, or other attributes by specifying page, item, and property values.
Set multiple anchored object properties
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| itemIndex | Yes | ||
| pageIndex | Yes | ||
| properties | Yes | ||
| document_id | No | Which open document to act on: a name (see document_listOpen) or a 0-based index. Defaults to the front document. |
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 the full behavioral burden. 'Set' implies a mutation, but the description does not disclose permission requirements, reversibility, what happens to omitted properties, or the expected response.
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 and is front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It essentially restates the tool name without adding operational detail.
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 mutation tool with four parameters, three required parameters, a nested free-form properties object, and no annotations, the description is far too thin. It omits the parameter semantics an agent needs and provides no behavioral context beyond the word 'Set'.
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 25%, and only document_id is documented in the schema. The description does not explain pageIndex, itemIndex, or the structure/accepted keys of the nested properties object, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 ('Set') and resource ('anchored object properties'), but 'properties' is vague and no scope or property types are identified. It does not differentiate this tool from siblings such as anchoredObject_setPosition or anchoredObject_getSettings.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. An agent cannot tell from the description when to choose this over anchoredObject_setPosition or anchoredObject_create.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.