Save a Substance 3D Designer package to a .sbs path inside an allowed folder, with optional overwrite for existing files.
Guarda un paquete. Un paquete nuevo necesita path (.sbs) dentro de una carpeta permitida.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| package | No | ||
| overwrite | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly fails it. It never states what happens to an existing package on disk, the effect of the undocumented overwrite flag, permission requirements for the 'allowed folder', or what a successful save returns.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the one constraint worth knowing. Nothing is padded, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing semantics noted elsewhere.
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?
For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, three undocumented parameters, and no output schema, the definition is thin. The mention of a permitted-folder restriction is helpful, but an agent still cannot determine safe invocation from this alone.
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 three parameters, and the description only gestures at path (mentioning the .sbs extension and the folder restriction). The package parameter and especially the boolean overwrite flag receive no explanation, leaving a potentially destructive option undefined.
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?
"Guarda un paquete" is a clear verb+resource, but it largely restates the tool name save_package. The added clause about a new package needing a .sbs path inside a permitted folder is the only information that distinguishes intent, and it does not separate this tool from siblings like export_sbsar or cook_sbs.
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?
The description implies usage only through the phrase about a *new* package, suggesting it also applies to existing ones, but never says when to choose this over export_sbsar, cook_sbs, or any other save/serialize path. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.