Set whether a text frame ignores text wrap on a chosen page, letting InDesign text overlap other objects when needed.
Set whether text frame ignores text wrap
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageIndex | Yes | ||
| frameIndex | Yes | ||
| ignoreWrap | 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. 'Set' implies a mutation, but it says nothing about permissions, reversibility, persistence, or return behavior — significant gaps for a write operation.
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 efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. Brevity comes at the cost of clarity elsewhere, but the sentence itself is well-formed.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 25% parameter coverage, the one-line description is inadequate. An agent lacks the framing/index semantics and mutation side-effects needed to call it reliably.
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% (just document_id). The description vaguely implies frameIndex and ignoreWrap but never clarifies that pageIndex/frameIndex are zero-based identifiers or how they interact. It does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.
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 ('whether text frame ignores text wrap'), so an agent can tell it toggles an ignore-wrap flag on a text frame. It is distinguishable from the nearby text_setTextWrap tool, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling.
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 guidance on when to use this versus text_setTextWrap or text_setInsetSpacing, no prerequisites, and no mention that the frame/document must already exist. Usage context is entirely left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.