Create a layer group in Substance Painter at the top or relative to a reference UID, including above, below, or inside it, to organize material layers.
Create a layer group at the top, or above, below or inside reference_uid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| position | No | top | |
| texture_set | No | ||
| reference_uid | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet says nothing about whether the layer stack is reordered, what happens when reference_uid is null while position is 'above'/'below'/'inside', permission or project-state requirements, or whether the group is empty on creation. It hints at placement semantics but does not resolve them into actionable behavior.
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 padding, which is the right shape for a simple creation tool. However, the comma-laden clause 'at the top, or above, below or inside reference_uid' reads ambiguously and forces rereading, so brevity comes at the cost of parseability.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a 4-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions, the single sentence leaves most call-critical information missing — notably the valid position values and the meaning of texture_set.
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 0% and only two of four parameters get any mention: reference_uid is named, and position is gestured at through the 'top, above, below or inside' phrasing — but without stating those are the accepted token values, which the schema itself does not enumerate. 'name' and 'texture_set' are entirely undocumented anywhere.
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 layer group'), which distinguishes it from create_fill_layer and create_paint_layer in the sibling list. The scope caveat that placement is relative to a reference layer adds usefulness, though the phrase 'at the top, or above, below or inside reference_uid' is grammatically muddled and never says plainly what 'top' means.
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 create_fill_layer, create_paint_layer, or insert_smart_material, and no prerequisites (must a project be open? must layers exist?). The agent must infer everything about selection from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.