Creates a new character style in an InDesign document, defining font family, size, style, and color for consistent text formatting.
Create a new character style
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| color | No | ||
| basedOn | No | ||
| fontStyle | No | ||
| pointSize | No | ||
| fontFamily | No | ||
| properties | 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. |
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 implies a mutation but says nothing about persistence, whether the new style is applied to any selection, what happens on name collision, or how the target document is resolved.
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 waste, but it is under-specified rather than truly concise – the brevity comes at the cost of any actionable detail.
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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, 13% schema coverage, and a nested properties object, a bare five-word description is far too thin. An agent has almost nothing to guide correct invocation.
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 13% – just document_id is documented, and that documentation lives in the schema, not the description. Seven parameters (name, color, basedOn, fontStyle, pointSize, fontFamily, properties) are undocumented in both places, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all.
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 (character style), which distinguishes it from style_createParagraph. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.
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 indication of when to use this tool versus style_createParagraph, style_duplicate, or style_listCharacter, nor any prerequisites. Usage is left entirely to inference from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.