add_ai_stimuli_source

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description goes beyond them by explaining idempotency concretely ('re-run returns the existing component') and by listing the returned fields, which is valuable since no output schema exists.

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 two front-loaded sentences plus a compact return-shape line. Every part earns its place: purpose first, idempotency second, return contract third.

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 simple two-parameter mutation tool with rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, idempotency, and return values, though it could mention prerequisites such as the actor being in an editor world or the AI perception system needing to be active.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented with types and defaults. The description restates the default sense ('Sight') but adds no syntax, constraints, or interpretation beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 uses a precise verb-resource pair: it adds a UAIPerceptionStimuliSourceComponent to an actor and registers it for a supplied AISense. The component class and registration behavior are specific enough to distinguish this from adjacent AI-perception tools such as add_ai_perception_sense.

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 the usage context: setting up an actor to be perceived by an AI sense, with Sight as the default. It does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.