perception_add_component

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects, but it only says 'add or find' and where the component is usually placed. It does not warn that this mutates the Blueprint asset or explain what happens when a component already exists, what save/compile effects occur, or whether the operation is destructive.

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 compact, front-loads the core action, and each sentence adds context, including a useful example and KB pointer. It is slightly unstructured (the KB line is an abrupt reference) but not padded.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the tool has four parameters, no annotations, and zero schema description coverage, so the description should cover operational details. It leaves component naming behavior, save/compile semantics, and find-versus-add behavior unexplained. The example helps but is not enough for a mutating Blueprint-editing tool.

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 needed to compensate, but only blueprint_name is illustrated via the example. The purpose of save, compile, and component_name is not explained beyond the raw schema titles/defaults.

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 names a specific verb (add/find), a specific resource type (AIPerceptionComponent), and the target (a Blueprint), so it is easy to tell this is about AI perception setup rather than a generic component tool. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like add_component_to_blueprint or add_pawn_sensing_component, which keeps it from 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?

It gives concrete usage context: the component is usually placed on an AIController Blueprint so the controller can sense actors and feed Blackboard/Behavior Tree state. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as PawnSensingComponent or perception_configure_sight, so it misses explicit exclusion guidance.

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