Apply a gradient feather effect to an InDesign object, fading its edges with a linear or radial gradient.
Apply a gradient feather effect to an object
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | linear | |
| angle | No | ||
| endPoint | No | ||
| itemIndex | Yes | ||
| pageIndex | Yes | ||
| startPoint | 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. |
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 behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: 'apply' implies a document mutation, but there is no statement of whether an existing feather/gradient is replaced, whether the change is undoable, what auth or selection state is required, or what happens to unspecified gradient attributes. This is thin for a 7-parameter 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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy; it is efficient. The brevity is not wasteful, though it reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.
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 tool with 7 parameters, nested startPoint/endPoint objects, no output schema and no annotations, one bare sentence is wholly inadequate. An agent cannot determine how to shape the gradient or how this differs from effect_applyFeather.
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%, so the description must compensate, yet it mentions none of the seven parameters — not the linear/radial type, the angle range, or the startPoint/endPoint geometry that define the gradient. It adds zero meaning beyond the schema and leaves the critical gradient-shape parameters unexplained.
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 sentence names a specific verb (apply) and resource (gradient feather effect), so the basic action is clear. But it essentially restates the tool name and offers no differentiation from the sibling effect_applyFeather (plain feather) or effect_applyDropShadow/effect_applyTransparency, which is exactly the ambiguity an agent needs resolved.
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 (e.g. does the object need to be selected?), and no mention of alternatives despite three sibling effect_* tools whose choice is non-obvious. The agent is left to infer everything from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.