Create a polygon shape on an InDesign page by defining position, size, and number of sides. Customize fill, stroke, and stroke weight.
Create a polygon on a page
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| width | Yes | ||
| height | Yes | ||
| fillColor | No | ||
| pageIndex | 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. | |
| strokeColor | No | ||
| strokeWeight | No | ||
| numberOfSides | 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates creation but does not mention permissions, document state requirements, undo behavior, or what happens to the page. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The single sentence is concise but under-specified for a tool with ten parameters, rather than efficiently front-loaded. It wastes no words, yet omits essential structural information an agent needs before invoking it.
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?
Given ten parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation of a page, the description is far too sparse to be complete. It omits parameter semantics, usage context, and behavioral traits, leaving the agent to infer almost everything from the name.
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 10%, and the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the vague phrase 'on a page'. Ten parameters including required pageIndex, x, y, width, height and optional fill/stroke/numberOfSides attributes are left entirely undocumented in the description. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 (Create) and resource (polygon) with a scope (on a page), so an agent can identify the basic action. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like shape_create or shape_rectangle_create, leaving the distinction to the tool name alone.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as needing an open document or a specific page. The description only states what the tool does, not when it is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.