perception_create_stimulus_source

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that the tool modifies a Blueprint asset, whether existing components are overwritten or appended, what happens when auto_register, save, or compile are used, or what side effects occur. This is a meaningful gap for a mutation-style 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 concise and well-structured: a front-loaded purpose statement, a brief helpful domain hint, a KB pointer, and a minimal example. Every element earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It covers the senses parameter and gives a partial blueprint_name example, but does not clarify what the required blueprint_name must look like beyond an example, what defaults do, or how the operation impacts the target Blueprint. The output schema being present reduces the need to document return values, but the input-side context is still incomplete.

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 adds some value by noting that typical senses are 'sight' and 'hearing' and by showing a blueprint_name example path. However, it does not explain component_name, auto_register, save, or compile semantics, leaving most parameters dependent on the schema alone.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Add or configure an AIPerceptionStimuliSourceComponent on a Blueprint.' This precisely identifies the component type and distinguishes it from generic component tools like add_component_to_blueprint. It does not explicitly contrast with perception_add_component or perception_configure_sight/hearing, which limits differentiation slightly.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as perception_add_component, add_component_to_blueprint, or perception_configure_sight. 'Typical senses are sight and hearing' is parameter guidance, not usage context. The KB reference and example imply usage but do not explain when this tool is the right choice.

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