perception_configure_sight

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the operation ('Add or update') but does not disclose whether this mutates the blueprint asset, requires saving, affects existing configs, or has side effects. The 'save' parameter defaulting to true implies persistence, but the description doesn't explain the behavior or consequences.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action. The KB reference and example are useful, but the example only demonstrates one parameter, which is a missed opportunity to show the full parameter set. Still, it is appropriately sized and not bloated.

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 10 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and a mutation operation, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of key parameters, the effect of 'save', or the expected output. The output schema exists but the description doesn't clarify what the tool returns or how the config change manifests.

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. It only mentions 'blueprint_name' in the example and the target component, leaving 9 of 10 parameters (sight_radius, lose_sight_radius, peripheral_vision_angle_degrees, detect_* flags, dominant, save, component_name) unexplained. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's parameter names.

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 a specific verb ('Add or update') and resource ('Sight sense config on an AIPerceptionComponent'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling perception tools like perception_configure_hearing. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly naming the sibling it differs from, but the verb+resource combination is clear.

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 usage by naming the target component and providing a KB reference, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like perception_configure_hearing or perception_add_component. The example call gives a concrete usage pattern, but no exclusions or conditions are provided.

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