ksp_editor_apply_craft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Replace the editor' hints that existing editor content is overwritten, which is the one useful disclosure, but there is nothing about async job behavior, permissions, live vs. non-live semantics, or whether the operation is reversible. For a bulk mutation tool this is a significant gap.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and no filler. Efficient, though the second sentence is thin enough that the brevity reads partly as under-specification rather than economy.

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?

Given a nested craft schema, 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It leaves the interaction between `live`, `pace`, `wait_for_completion`, and `require_connected` unexplained, and says nothing about what happens to the current editor contents beyond the word 'replace'.

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 only 17% (just `pace`), and the description adds nothing about any of the 6 parameters. The phrase 'complete craft document' gives faint meaning to the required `craft` payload, but `live`, `require_connected`, `wait_for_completion`, and `parts_per_frame` remain undocumented. Low coverage and no compensating detail.

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 and resource ('replace the editor with a complete craft document') and adds scope ('built from zero', 'main bulk-building tool'). This implicitly separates it from incremental siblings like ksp_editor_add_part/attach_part, though it never names them. Clear enough that an agent knows what the tool does.

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 'main bulk-building tool' implies a when-to-use condition (bulk construction vs. piecewise editing), but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer ksp_editor_new, ksp_editor_load, or ksp_editor_clear, nor any preconditions. Usage is implied, not stated.

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