Synchronize book documents with a style source to keep styles, masters, and formatting consistent across chapters in Adobe InDesign.
Synchronize book documents with the style source
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bookIndex | 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 disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about what synchronization overwrites (local overrides, styles, master pages), whether it is reversible, or what permissions are needed. "Synchronize" implies a mutating, potentially destructive operation with no warning given.
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 short, front-loaded sentence with no padding, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. There is no wasted wording, yet also very little content.
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 mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a required parameter undocumented in both schema and description, the definition is materially incomplete. An agent cannot predict what will change or how to confirm success.
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 50%; document_id is well documented in the schema (referencing document_listOpen) but bookIndex has no description anywhere. The description adds no parameter meaning to compensate for the undocumented required parameter.
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?
"Synchronize book documents with the style source" gives a specific verb (synchronize) and resource (book documents), and distinguishes itself from the sibling book tools (book_list, book_open, book_getDocuments), which are read/management operations. The phrase "style source" is somewhat vague about which styles are pulled and in which direction, but the core action is clear.
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 indication of when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., a book must be open), and no exclusions. The agent must infer that a book context is required and that this is distinct from style_listParagraph or master_apply.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.