Ends the active undo group and restores default undo behavior in InDesign, optionally targeting a specified open document.
End the undo group and restore the default undo behavior
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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. It discloses only that default undo behavior is restored; it says nothing about whether grouped commands coalesce into a single undo step, what happens if no group is open, or any error/permission behavior for what is clearly a state-mutating 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 tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the sparseness borders on under-specification rather than model 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?
Low-complexity tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, so little is strictly required. However, the grouping semantics — the actual purpose of the begin/end pair — are left unexplained, which is a meaningful gap for a session-state mutation.
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 100%, so document_id is fully documented in the schema (name vs. 0-based index, defaults to front document). The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.
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+resource ('End the undo group') and adds the outcome ('restore the default undo behavior'). It is distinguishable from siblings like undo/redo/undo_beginGroup, though it never names its counterpart explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'End the undo group' suggests it must follow undo_beginGroup, but the description never states that pairing, nor when to call it versus the plain undo tool. An agent can infer the workflow from the name alone but gets no explicit routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.