Move a page to a new position in the active InDesign document by setting its current index and target index.
Move a page to a new position in the active document
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | Yes | ||
| toIndex | 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?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It doesn't say whether the move is reversible, how intervening pages shift, whether indices are 0-based, or whether an undo point is created — all material for a mutation 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 efficient sentence with no waste, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision given the gaps above.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a confusing index/toIndex pair, the description does far too little. An agent needs to know the index semantics and the effect on surrounding pages before invoking 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 only 33% and the description adds nothing about the two required params. Crucially, the distinction between 'index' (current position) and 'toIndex' (target position) is left entirely undefined, which is the single most important ambiguity for calling this tool correctly.
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?
Clear verb+resource: 'Move a page' with the destination framing 'to a new position in the active document'. It does not differentiate from siblings like page_duplicate or page_add, but the action itself is unambiguous.
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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many page_* siblings. The agent must infer when this is the right tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.