Add a text frame to a specific page in an open InDesign document by setting bounds and optional text content.
Add a text frame to a specified page with content
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bounds | Yes | ||
| content | No | ||
| pageIndex | 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 behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about permissions, whether 'add' is a persistent mutation, what coordinate space/units 'bounds' uses, or what happens on failure. It is not misleading, just uninformative.
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 wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a one-line statement, though its brevity contributes to the gaps noted elsewhere.
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 a creation/mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a required nested geometry parameter that is undocumented, the description is insufficient. An agent cannot confidently call it without inferring bounds semantics and document context.
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 coverage is only 25%, with document_id the sole documented parameter. The description loosely signals pageIndex ('specified page') and content, but the required nested 'bounds' object (top/left/bottom/right numbers) is entirely unexplained in units or coordinate reference.
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 (add), resource (text frame), and location (a specified page with content). It is distinguishable from siblings like text_getTextFrames and text_setContent, but it never explicitly names or contrasts an alternative tool.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as text_setContent for existing frames or shape_create. No prerequisites (e.g., a document must be open) are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.