Preflight and start a cancellable multi-Texture-Set bake in Substance Painter, producing result manifests for tracking. Use it to validate settings before committing a batch bake.
Preflight and start a cancellable multi-Texture-Set bake with result manifests.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | ||
| backup_mode | No | Incremental | |
| backup_path | No | ||
| texture_sets | Yes | ||
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses cancellability and result manifests, but omits side effects, backup/overwrite behavior, confirm semantics, permissions, and failure handling.
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. It is efficient, though arguably too compressed for the tool's complexity.
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 covers return values, but for a five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description lacks the usage, parameter, and safety details needed 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%, and the description only hints at texture_sets via 'multi-Texture-Set'. The confirm, backup_mode, backup_path, and overwrite_backup parameters are 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 a specific verb ('Preflight and start') and resource ('multi-Texture-Set bake'), plus cancellable/manifests. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like start_bake or preflight_bake, so it stops short of a 5.
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 when-to-use or when-not guidance is given, and it does not mention alternatives such as preflight_bake or start_bake. The batch context is only implied by 'multi-Texture-Set'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.