Duplicate a paragraph, character, or object style in an open InDesign document by specifying its current and new name.
Duplicate a style
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| type | Yes | ||
| newName | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and provides none of it: nothing about whether this is a write operation, whether the source style is preserved, what the duplicate's resulting name is, or permission requirements. The single phrase adds no behavioral information beyond the name.
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?
Brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness: a four-word phrase with three required inputs leaves the agent guessing. There is no structure, front-loading, or useful content to compress.
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?
A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented required parameters needs substantial description, but the definition offers nothing about side effects, return value, or error cases.
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 25% (only document_id is documented), and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all. Three required parameters (name, type, newName) are left entirely to the schema with no explanation of their roles in the duplication.
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?
"Duplicate a style" gives a verb and resource, so an agent knows the operation, but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and adds nothing about which style types (paragraph/character/object) apply or how it differs from siblings like master_duplicate or page_duplicate.
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 such as style_createParagraph/style_createCharacter for authoring styles from scratch. The agent must infer all routing from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.