Apply a feather effect to soften object edges in InDesign. Specify page and item index, then set type, width, and noise for the desired blur.
Apply a feather effect to an object
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | basic | |
| noise | No | ||
| width | No | ||
| itemIndex | Yes | ||
| pageIndex | 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. | |
| chamferWidth | No |
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 of behavioral disclosure and largely fails it. It implies a mutation on an object but never states what feathering does, what object types are valid, whether the operation is reversible/undoable, or what side effects it has.
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, which is structurally fine. However, its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than genuine economy, so it is only adequate.
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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 14% schema coverage, a bare one-liner is wholly inadequate. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly — valid targets, undo behavior, or parameter meaning — is present.
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 14% (just document_id), and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. The 7 parameters — including non-obvious ones like chamferWidth, noise, width, and type — are left completely undocumented in both places.
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 clear verb+resource combination ('Apply a feather effect') that is unambiguous on its own. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the sibling effect_applyGradientFeather, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which feather variant to pick.
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 reference to alternatives such as effect_applyGradientFeather or effect_applyTransparency, despite those siblings being the obvious near-duplicates. The agent must infer selection criteria entirely on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.