Apply a color swatch to a selected object's fill, stroke, or both in Adobe InDesign, targeting the front or specified document.
Apply a color swatch to selected item (fill or stroke)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No | fill | |
| swatchName | 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. It hints at operating on the 'selected item' (implying a required selection) but says nothing about what happens with no selection, whether the swatch must already exist, undo behavior, or the effect of target='both'. Significant behavioral gaps remain for a mutation tool.
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 tight sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Nothing is wasted and the parenthetical is immediately useful.
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?
A 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs more context than this one-liner provides. The document_id parameter is self-documented in the schema, but the selection requirement and failure/side-effect behavior are left unexplained.
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 coverage is only 33%, so the description should compensate. It maps 'swatch' to swatchName and 'fill or stroke' to the target enum, covering two of three parameters at a conceptual level, but adds no format or value semantics beyond what the schema already shows. Baseline 3 fits.
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 specific verb (apply), resource (color swatch), and target (selected item, fill or stroke). The parenthetical clarifies the operation's scope. It does not, however, name or differentiate itself from nearby siblings like color_swatch_create/delete or table_setCellFill, so it stops short of a 5.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named despite many related color siblings (color_swatch_*, color_gradient_create, table_setCellFill/Stroke). The agent must infer that this applies to the current selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.