Set header and footer row counts for an InDesign table, with optional header repetition across pages.
Set header and footer row counts
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageIndex | Yes | ||
| footerRows | No | ||
| headerRows | No | ||
| tableIndex | 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. | |
| repeatHeader | 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. It says nothing about whether this mutates the document, what permissions are needed, whether existing header/footer content is destroyed when counts are reduced, or what repeatHeader does — a serious 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 front-loaded sentence is tight, but for a six-parameter mutation tool it is under-specified rather than concise. The brevity here signals missing information, not efficient communication.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, six parameters at 17% schema coverage, and no behavioral detail, the description is not complete enough to call this tool correctly. An agent must guess at parameter roles and side effects.
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 17% (just document_id), leaving pageIndex, tableIndex, headerRows, footerRows and repeatHeader undocumented in both schema and description. The phrase 'header and footer row counts' loosely maps to headerRows/footerRows but leaves indexing, required pageIndex/tableIndex, and repeatHeader entirely unexplained.
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 ('Set') and resource ('header and footer row counts'), so the agent knows this configures table header/footer rows. It is clear on its own but does not differentiate itself from table-adjacent siblings like table_setRowColumnSize or table_create.
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. Nothing tells the agent when this tool is appropriate versus other table-mutation tools such as table_setRowColumnSize or table_setCell.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.