Scale an InDesign object by percentage on X/Y axes, targeting a specific page and item index in an open document.
Scale an object by percentages
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scaleX | No | ||
| scaleY | No | ||
| itemIndex | Yes | ||
| 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. | |
| isPercentage | 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 burden of behavioral disclosure, and it adds almost nothing: it doesn't state permissions, whether scaling happens in place, how existing geometry is affected, or that it targets an item by page/index rather than the current selection. 'by percentages' is the only behavioral hint, aligning loosely with the isPercentage default.
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 filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is also the source of the specification gaps 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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and most parameters undocumented, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot confidently determine targeting semantics (pageIndex/itemIndex vs. selection), units, or failure behavior.
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 17% (just document_id), so the description must compensate, but 'by percentages' only weakly signals isPercentage. The core scaleX/scaleY ranges and the required pageIndex/itemIndex targeting are left entirely for the agent to infer from bare schema types.
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?
Specific verb (scale) plus resource (an object) with a modifier (by percentages), so the agent knows the operation. However, it does not distinguish itself from the four transform_* siblings (align, distribute, rotate, flip) and 'object' is vague, leaving the agent to infer it means page items.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions or pointers to alternatives. Given siblings like transform_flip and transform_rotate that could seem applicable, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.