ksp_editor_add_part

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden but delivers almost none: it does not say whether the editor scene must be active, whether the part is persisted to the craft, what happens on invalid part ids, or how the added part interacts with staging/action groups. Only the 'one real part' phrasing vaguely implies validation.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is concise, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 mutation tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a nested object parameter, the description is far too thin. An agent lacks the information needed to supply the required id/part correctly or to understand attachment semantics.

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% across 11 parameters, including a nested object (action_groups) and required id/part, yet the description explains none of them. It only gestures at parent attachment, leaving stage, variant, position, rotation, attach_node, snap_to_node, and parent_attach_node completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb (add) and resource (KSP part) scoped to the current editor craft, which is enough for an agent to identify the operation. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling ksp_editor_attach_part, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which one to pick when the intent is attachment.

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 phrase 'optionally attached to an existing part' hints at the parent-child case but never states when to use this tool versus ksp_editor_attach_part or ksp_editor_update_part. No prerequisites (e.g., must be in the editor scene) or exclusion conditions are given.

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