Create a new XML tag in an open Adobe InDesign document to structure content, optionally target a document by name or 0-based index; defaults to front.
Create a new XML tag
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | 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, and it says nothing about whether the new tag is added to the document's tag list, whether duplicate names are rejected, or what happens if no document is open. 'Create' implies mutation but no side effects or permissions are disclosed.
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 waste. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and half the parameters undocumented, the description leaves an agent guessing about prerequisites, return value (e.g., the new tag's identifier), and side effects. For a mutation tool this is too thin.
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 50%: document_id is documented in the schema, but the required 'name' parameter has no description anywhere. The description adds nothing about naming rules (uniqueness, case sensitivity, allowed characters) to compensate for that gap.
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 and resource ('Create a new XML tag'), so an agent immediately knows the operation. It does not differentiate from siblings like xml_import (which can also introduce tags) or xml_tagPageItem, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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 xml_import, xml_tagPageItem, or xml_listTags. It also doesn't state the obvious prerequisite that a document must be open (only implied by the document_id parameter).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.