Validate a layer recipe, resolve channels, and preview backup and mutation scope without editing, so you can plan changes before modifying a Substance Painter project.
Validate a recipe, resolve channels, and preview backup/mutation scope without editing.
| 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 burden, and it does disclose the critical non-mutating behavior ('without editing') plus what is previewed (backup/mutation scope, channel resolution). It says nothing about failure behavior, permissions, or whether backup artifacts are actually created in preview mode.
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 three concrete actions and the non-editing constraint; no filler, nothing buried.
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?
The output schema removes the need to explain return values, and the no-edit behavior is covered, but with 0% parameter coverage and no annotations the definition leaves too much unexplained about how to supply the recipe and what backup_mode/overwrite_backup control.
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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It gestures at backup and mutation scope but never mentions recipe, backup_mode, backup_path, texture_set, or overwrite_backup, leaving the recipe structure and backup options entirely 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?
States specific verbs (validate, resolve, preview) against a concrete resource (a layer recipe) and adds the key qualifier 'without editing', which distinguishes it from create_layer_recipe. The sibling name is never mentioned, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.
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?
'without editing' implies this is a dry-run to call before committing a recipe, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (create_layer_recipe) to route the agent. Usage must be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.