add_on_hear_noise_event

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the event trigger condition (sound within HearingThreshold), the event outputs (PawnInstigator, Location, Loudness), and the side effect of wiring to UpdateSoundBB to set HasHeardSound and LocationOfSound. It doesn't discuss permissions, reversibility, or compilation, but the core mutation is transparent.

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 front-loaded with the core action and uses labeled sections (Args, KB, Example) for the remaining details. No sentence is wasted, and the formatting makes it easy for an agent to scan.

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 description covers the event semantics, wiring outcome, all parameters, and even points to a knowledge base section and example call. With an output schema declared, return values need not be described. Minor gaps like explicit prerequisites (component must already exist) are implied rather than stated.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining each argument: blueprint_name is the target Enemy AI Controller Blueprint, pawn_sensing_component names the component, and node_position is an optional graph coordinate. The example adds path format for blueprint_name.

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 states the exact action ('Bind'), the specific event ('On Hear Noise'), and the source component ('PawnSensing'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like add_on_see_pawn_event. The wiring target (UpdateSoundBB macro) and output variables further specify the tool's role.

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 provides clear context: this is for AI controllers that should react to sounds within HearingThreshold, with a specific wiring pattern. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as add_on_see_pawn_event or add_report_noise_event_node, but enough context is given to infer the intended use.

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