Set a text frame's auto-sizing behavior to off, height only, or width and height by page and frame index, optionally with a reference point.
Set auto-sizing type for a text frame
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageIndex | Yes | ||
| frameIndex | 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. | |
| autoSizingType | Yes | ||
| referencePoint | 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 behavioral burden. It does not state that this is a mutating operation on an open document, whether it requires an active selection, whether prior auto-sizing settings can be restored, or what happens when an invalid frame index is supplied.
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 short sentence with no filler is front-loaded well, but at this level of brevity it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — nothing is wasted, yet almost nothing is delivered either.
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 5-parameter mutation tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and 20% schema coverage, the definition falls well short — an agent cannot reliably determine prerequisites, parameter meaning, or the effect of the change from this description.
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 20% — just document_id is documented. The description adds nothing about the required pageIndex/frameIndex addressing scheme, nor does it explain the autoSizingType values ('off', 'heightOnly', 'widthAndHeight', 'heightAndWidth') or the referencePoint enum, leaving half the parameters opaque.
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 states a specific verb ('Set') plus resource ('auto-sizing type') and target ('a text frame'), which is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many other text_* frame-mutating siblings such as text_setTextWrap or text_setColumns, so the agent gets no routing signal.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention that a document must be open or a frame must exist, and no pointer to alternative tools for related frame formatting. The agent must infer all context 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.