Add a hyperlink to selected text or a page item in Adobe InDesign by providing the link name, URL, page index, and item index.
Add a hyperlink to a text selection or page item
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| name | 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 provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies mutation through the verb 'Add'. It does not state permission requirements, whether an existing hyperlink on the target is replaced, whether the document must be saved, or any side effects.
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?
It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is good structure. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tightness, given what the tool actually requires.
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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 20% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It omits parameter meaning, targeting rules for text selection vs. page item, and any state or permission context.
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 20% (only document_id is documented). The description never mentions url, name, pageIndex, or itemIndex, so four required parameters—including what 'name' represents for a hyperlink and how page/item indices resolve—remain unexplained 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Add a hyperlink') plus its target ('a text selection or page item'), so an agent can distinguish it from interactive_listHyperlinks and interactive_deleteHyperlink. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, so it is clear but not perfectly differentiated.
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 and no alternatives named. The agent must infer the intended context from the sibling names (e.g., that list/delete counterparts exist) rather than from the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.