Set a table row's height or column's width in InDesign by specifying document, page, table, index, and size.
Set row height or column width
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | Yes | ||
| type | Yes | ||
| index | Yes | ||
| units | No | points | |
| pageIndex | Yes | ||
| 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. |
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 says 'set' but does not explain permissions, whether the change is reversible, what happens to existing cell content when dimensions change, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 description is a single efficient sentence with no wasted words and is front-loaded. However, for a seven-parameter mutation tool it is arguably under-specified rather than appropriately concise.
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 seven parameters, 14% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is completely inadequate. It omits units, indexing semantics, document targeting, and the distinction between row and column behavior, all of which the agent needs.
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 very low at 14%, with only document_id documented. The description adds no meaning for the other six parameters—type, index, size, units, pageIndex, and tableIndex—which are critical to invoking this tool correctly. It does not compensate for the schema gap 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?
The description gives a specific verb and resource: set row height or column width. It clearly distinguishes sizing from sibling table operations like table_addRow, table_addColumn, and table_setCell. However, it does not explicitly state the table context or how it differs from adjacent tools such as table_setHeaderFooter or table_setCellInset.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites such as needing an existing table or an open document. It also omits any exclusions or edge cases, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.