Create a gradient swatch in an open InDesign document by defining its name, gradient type, and color stops. Use linear or radial gradients with custom color positions.
Create a gradient swatch
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| type | No | linear | |
| stops | 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, yet it only restates the operation. It says nothing about name-collision behavior, whether the gradient becomes available as a swatch afterward, which document it lands in by default, or what the call returns.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. There is no structural elaboration to help an agent act on it.
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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 25% schema coverage, a one-line description is inadequate. An agent lacks the behavioral and parameter context needed to invoke it confidently.
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% (only document_id is documented), and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. The concepts of 'stops', 'type', and 'name' are never explained in the description, so it does not 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 and resource ('Create a gradient swatch'), so an agent immediately knows it produces a gradient definition. However, it does not distinguish itself from the very similar sibling color_swatch_create, leaving ambiguity about which creation tool to pick for a gradient versus a flat swatch.
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 mention of alternatives such as color_swatch_create or color_apply. The agent is left to infer context entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.