Delete a page from the active InDesign document by index, optionally targeting a specific open document by name or index, to remove unwanted pages during automation.
Delete a page from the active document 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that the operation is destructive and scoped to the active document, but says nothing about irreversibility, whether the deletion is undoable, what happens to content on the deleted page, or the required permissions.
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, though its terseness is part of what leaves gaps elsewhere.
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 destructive mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and a required parameter whose semantics are undocumented, the description is too thin. An agent cannot know the indexing convention, reversibility, or side effects on page content and numbering before calling it.
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 fully documented in the schema, but the required 'index' parameter has only type/minimum, no description. The description says 'by index' but never clarifies 0-based versus 1-based indexing or how index relates to page ordering, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap on the required parameter.
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 (page) plus a scoping constraint ('from the active document by index'), which separates it from sibling mutators like page_add, page_duplicate, and page_move. It is clear on its own, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings.
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 guidance on when to use this versus page_add/page_duplicate/page_move, and no prerequisites, warnings, or alternative named. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and one-line description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.