Delete a column from a table in an open InDesign document by specifying page, table, and column indices.
Delete a column from a table
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageIndex | Yes | ||
| tableIndex | Yes | ||
| columnIndex | 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 burden. 'Delete' implies a destructive, likely irreversible mutation, but the description says nothing about whether adjacent columns shift left, whether content is lost permanently, permission requirements, or the default document target. It only restates the destructive verb.
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, which is structurally clean. But its brevity is under-specification rather than true conciseness, since required context is simply absent.
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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented required parameters needs substantially more disclosure about indices, defaults, and side effects. As written, an agent cannot call it confidently without probing the schema.
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). The three required parameters — pageIndex, tableIndex, columnIndex — have no descriptions in the schema, and the description adds no meaning about indexing base, ordering, or default document behavior, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 ('Delete a column from a table'), which is unambiguous on its own. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the very similar sibling table_deleteRow, and the distinction is only inferable from the tool name.
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 reference to alternatives such as table_deleteRow or table_deleteColumn-style operations. The agent gets no indication of ordering constraints (e.g., must the table have more than one column).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.