add_pawn_sensing_component

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully explains runtime behavior: OnSeePawn/OnHearNoise events, HearingThreshold, SightRadius, and PeripheralVisionAngle. However, it does not state the mutation side effects on the Blueprint asset, prerequisites, or failure behavior, which would be valuable for a no-annotation tool.

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 well-structured with a purpose line, behavior bullets, an Args section, a KB reference, and an example. It is compact enough to read quickly while still providing substance. Minor default-value repetition with the schema is acceptable because the schema lacks descriptions.

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 moderate-complexity add-component tool, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, defaults, a concrete example, and a KB reference. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not essential. A small gap is that it does not mention the component's generated name or whether the Blueprint should be saved or compiled afterward.

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%, so the description must compensate for the input schema, and it does. It explains all five parameters with meaningful detail: blueprint path, hearing radius in cm, dark vision flag, sight radius, and vision half-angle in degrees. The example call further clarifies how blueprint_name should be supplied.

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 opens with a concrete verb+resource: 'Add a PawnSensing component to a Blueprint for AI perception.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and is more specific than generic siblings like add_component_to_blueprint or perception_add_component. It does not explicitly name those alternatives to differentiate itself, 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?

The description implies a clear use case: giving an enemy Blueprint sight and hearing perception via PawnSensing. It also provides a KB reference and an example invocation. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not compare against related alternatives such as perception_add_component or add_on_see_pawn_event.

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