Evenly space selected InDesign objects across a page or within margins by aligning edges, centers, or gaps horizontally and vertically.
Distribute objects evenly on a page
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bounds | No | selection | |
| 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. | |
| itemIndices | Yes | ||
| distributeMode | Yes |
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. 'Distribute' implies a mutation of object positions, but the description says nothing about what gets modified, whether it is undoable, whether objects must be selected first, or what the result looks like. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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 tight sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words. Its brevity is a virtue structurally, though it edges toward under-specification rather than pure conciseness.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits the range of distributeMode options, the meaning of bounds, and any behavioral context, leaving an agent without enough to invoke 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 description coverage is only 20% (just document_id), and the description adds nothing about the parameters. The five parameters, including required itemIndices and distributeMode and the bounds/distributeMode enums, are left for the agent to interpret from the schema alone, which the description does not compensate for.
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 (distribute) and resource (objects on a page), so the core action is clear. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling transform_align, which is the natural alternative an agent would confuse it with (align vs. evenly distribute).
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 indication of when to use this versus transform_align, transform_scale, or any other transform sibling. No prerequisites, no conditions, no exclusions are stated, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.