Restart list numbering at a chosen paragraph by setting its start value, so numbered sequences reset at the right point in an InDesign document.
Restart numbering at a specific paragraph
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageIndex | Yes | ||
| frameIndex | 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. | |
| startNumber | Yes | ||
| paragraphIndex | Yes |
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. 'Restart numbering' implies a mutation, but the description says nothing about what state is affected, whether it is reversible, what format startNumber takes, or what is returned – a significant gap for a no-annotation 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 short sentence with no wasted words and the action front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. Brevity here comes at the cost of the guidance the tool needs.
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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 20% schema coverage, a one-line description is inadequate. Nothing tells the agent how to locate the target paragraph or what startNumber does, so the definition is not sufficient to call the tool correctly.
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% (just document_id), so the description must compensate for the other four parameters. It adds no information about paragraphIndex, startNumber, pageIndex, or frameIndex – 'a specific paragraph' only loosely gestures at paragraphIndex without clarifying syntax or semantics.
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 verb ('restart') and resource ('numbering') but leaves the resource ambiguous – 'numbering' could mean list numbering, section numbering, or footnote numbering, and siblings like section_setNumbering and list_applyToParagraph make the distinction material. It does not differentiate this tool from those siblings, so the purpose is only vaguely conveyed.
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 mention of prerequisites, and no reference to any alternative tool. An agent cannot tell from the description when this should be invoked versus list_applyToParagraph or section_setNumbering.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.