Import a sandboxed resource into the open Substance 3D Painter project and verify it is available for use.
Import and verify a sandboxed resource inside the open Painter project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| group | No | ||
| usage | Yes | ||
| confirm | No | ||
| file_path | Yes |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it does not say whether this mutates the project persistently, what 'verify' actually checks, what 'sandboxed' constrains, or what the `confirm` flag gates. For a write-ish import operation with a confirmation parameter, this is a substantial gap.
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, which is structurally clean, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise for a five-parameter mutation tool.
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 needn't be described, but with zero annotation coverage, 0% parameter documentation, and a confirmation gate, the description leaves an agent unable to call this correctly without guessing.
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 5 parameters, and the description names none of them. Terms like `usage`, `group`, `name`, and especially `confirm` (default false) are left entirely unexplained, so the description adds no meaning beyond the bare schema.
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 ('Import and verify') and resource ('sandboxed resource') scoped to the open Painter project, which distinguishes it from shelf/session variants in spirit. It never names the sibling tools (import_shelf_resource, import_session_resource) that an agent would otherwise confuse it with, so the differentiation is only implicit.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (must a project be open? does the file need to be in a sandbox?), and no mention of the closely related siblings that handle other import scopes. The agent must infer everything from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.