Replaces or relinks an InDesign image with a new file by page and item index, so you can update missing or outdated assets without manually relinking each frame.
Relink/replace an image with a new file
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filePath | Yes | ||
| 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. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the bare mutation. It does not say whether the original file or link is lost, whether the existing frame geometry/scaling/cropping is preserved (the key question for a relink), whether the path must be absolute, or whether failure leaves the prior link intact.
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 the verb leading and zero filler. Its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than waste, but every word present earns its place.
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?
A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three of four parameters undocumented would need the description to compensate; instead it offers one clause. An agent lacks the context needed to invoke it confidently beyond the obvious 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 description coverage is 25% – only document_id is documented – and the description names no parameter at all. Three required parameters (pageIndex, itemIndex, filePath) are undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving the caller to guess how an image is addressed and what form filePath takes.
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 ('Relink/replace') plus the resource ('an image') and the operation's input ('with a new file'), so the agent knows the effect. It does not distinguish itself from plausible siblings such as image_place or resources_updateLink, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.
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, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given. An agent cannot tell from the text whether relinking is preferred over image_place or resources_updateLink, or what preconditions (open document, existing placed image) apply.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.