Create a new InDesign section at a chosen start page, setting its name, prefix, and numbering style.
Create a new section starting at a specified page
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| document_id | No | Which open document to act on: a name (see document_listOpen) or a 0-based index. Defaults to the front document. | |
| includePrefix | No | ||
| sectionPrefix | No | ||
| numberingStyle | No | decimal | |
| startPageIndex | Yes | ||
| pageNumberStart | No |
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 says nothing about permissions, reversibility, interaction with existing sections, or what defaults the new section receives, which is a significant gap 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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no wasted words. Brevity is appropriate structurally, though it leaves content gaps.
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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 14% schema coverage, a one-line description is far too thin. An agent lacks the context needed to invoke it correctly across its parameters.
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 14% (just document_id), so the description must compensate for the six undocumented parameters. It only gestures at startPageIndex ('starting at a specified page') and says nothing about name, includePrefix, sectionPrefix, numberingStyle, or pageNumberStart.
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+resource ('Create a new section') and adds the scope constraint ('starting at a specified page'). It is clearly distinguishable from section_delete and section_list by name, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling section tools in the text.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and does not name alternatives such as section_setNumbering or section_delete. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.