configure_ai_sight_radius

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=true and idempotent=true; the description adds value beyond them by disclosing the failure mode (0 means no sight config, nothing changed) and the actor-resolution context (editor world, unpossessed pawn errors). It does not explicitly say existing radii are overwritten, which is the main remaining gap given destructiveHint.

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?

Front-loaded with the mutation itself, followed by preconditions and then return behavior. It is tight overall, though the trailing 'Returns: { ... }' line partially restates the earlier sentence about sight_radius, lose_sight_radius and sight_sense_count.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return burden and does so explicitly, and it covers the editor-world lookup and error condition for a mutating tool. Combined with annotations that already flag destruction and idempotency, it is nearly complete; only the overwrite semantics are left implicit.

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 all three parameters are already documented, including the 1.5x default for lose_sight_radius. The description restates that default but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (Set) plus precisely named resources (SightRadius and LoseSightRadius on the sight config of the AIPerceptionComponent of an AI-possessed pawn or AIController). An agent can distinguish it from sibling getters like get_ai_perception_senses or setters like add_ai_perception_sense without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear context and a hard precondition: the actor is looked up in the editor world, not PIE, and an unpossessed pawn is an error. It does not name an alternative tool (e.g. adding the sight sense first) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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