Builds a nested layer recipe atomically in Substance Painter, optionally saving an approved .spp backup first to protect the current project.
Create a nested recipe atomically, optionally saving an approved .spp backup first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recipe | Yes | ||
| backup_mode | No | Incremental | |
| backup_path | No | ||
| texture_set | No | ||
| overwrite_backup | 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, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that creation is atomic and that a backup may be saved first, but it omits permissions, failure behavior, what an 'approved .spp' means, and how overwrite_backup affects existing backups.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and the optional backup behavior.
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?
This is a mutation tool with a required nested recipe array, five parameters, and no annotations, yet the description is extremely thin. The output schema may cover return values, but the input semantics and behavioral context are far too sparse for an agent to invoke it confidently.
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% across five parameters, so the description must compensate. It mentions the recipe and backup concepts but does not explain backup_mode, backup_path, texture_set, or overwrite_backup, leaving most parameter meaning undocumented.
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?
The description gives a specific verb and resource: creating a nested recipe atomically, with an optional .spp backup. This is clear enough to understand the operation, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling plan_layer_recipe or clarify that it is a layer recipe.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus plan_layer_recipe or other layer-creation siblings. The phrase 'optionally saving an approved .spp backup first' hints at a backup option but does not state when that option should be used or what conditions make this tool appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.