Delete a named color swatch from an open Adobe InDesign document, optionally targeting a specific document by name or 0-based index.
Delete a color swatch by name
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | 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 burden. It signals a destructive mutation via 'Delete', but says nothing about whether the deletion is reversible (undo history, undo_beginGroup), what happens if the named swatch is absent, or whether the swatch is in use by applied colors.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though the extreme terseness leaves gaps that belong to other dimensions rather than being a structure problem.
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 destructive no-annotations tool with no output schema and only half the parameters documented, this description is too thin. It should at minimum cover reversibility and the not-found case.
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 50%: document_id is documented in the schema, while the required 'name' property has no schema description. The phrase 'by name' partially compensates by clarifying what is being matched, but the description does not explain name-matching behavior (exact match, case sensitivity) or the default-document behavior of document_id.
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 and resource ('Delete a color swatch') plus the lookup key ('by name'), which is enough to distinguish it from color_swatch_create and color_swatch_list. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it falls short of the top tier.
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 versus color_swatch_create/list or color_apply, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer that this is the removal counterpart to color_swatch_create.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.