Save the active InDesign document to its current location or a specified path, and choose whether to prompt on overwrite.
Save the active InDesign document, optionally to a specific path
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filePath | No | ||
| document_id | No | Which open document to act on: a name (see document_listOpen) or a 0-based index. Defaults to the front document. | |
| saveOptions | No | yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for a write operation. It doesn't disclose whether saving to a new path changes the document's association, whether existing files are overwritten, or what 'ask' triggers, leaving destructive/overwrite behavior opaque.
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 filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the specification gaps rather than resolving them.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and 33% param coverage, the description is too thin. It omits overwrite behavior, the meaning of saveOptions, and any distinction from export or close, leaving an agent under-informed before calling it.
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%: document_id is documented in the schema, but filePath has no description and saveOptions (enum yes/no/ask) is completely unexplained. The description only loosely implies filePath via 'to a specific path' and adds no semantics for the enum, which is the most ambiguous 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?
Clear verb+resource: 'Save the active InDesign document' with an optional target path. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like export_document or document_close, so the agent must infer the save-vs-export boundary on its own.
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 guidance on when to use this versus export_document, document_close, or how to invoke a 'save as' flow. The mention that a path is 'optional' is the only usage hint, and saveOptions values (yes/no/ask) are never explained.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.