Delete a hyperlink from an open InDesign document by its zero-based index, optionally specifying the target document. Use it to clean up or manage existing links.
Delete a hyperlink by index
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and provides almost nothing: it does not say whether the deletion is undoable, whether an out-of-range index errors, or whether the action is restricted to the front document. 'By index' implies selection semantics but no operational detail.
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 waste, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise; the brevity leaves real gaps that a longer description should have filled.
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 a partially documented schema needs more than a five-word description. It omits the document-open prerequisite, the index source, and error behavior, leaving an agent likely to call it blind.
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 50%: document_id is documented in the schema, index is not. The phrase 'by index' clarifies that the index refers to a hyperlink position, slightly adding meaning over the bare integer schema, but it does not say where that index comes from (presumably interactive_listHyperlinks) or how it is ordered.
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 (delete) and resource (hyperlink) plus the locator mechanism (by index), which is enough to distinguish it from interactive_addHyperlink and interactive_listHyperlinks. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it stops short of 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 context, no prerequisites (e.g. that the document must be open or where the index originates), and no mention of the sibling list/add tools. The agent must infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.