ksp_editor_clear

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the operation is bulk-destructive ('every part'), but says nothing about reversibility, undo, confirmation, whether the craft must be in an editable state, or what happens afterward. That leaves significant gaps for a destructive bulk operation.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the scope ('every part') is front-loaded. Slight awkwardness in 'the current editor craft' prevents a top mark but nothing is wasted.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the action and scope but omits the destructive-operation context an agent would want before clearing an in-progress craft.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the description need not compensate. Baseline 4 applies since there are no parameter semantics to clarify.

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 ('clear') and resource ('every part from the current editor craft'), making the bulk-removal action unambiguous. It does not name sibling operations like ksp_editor_remove_part (which deletes one part) or ksp_editor_new, so an agent must infer the distinction from names alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as ksp_editor_remove_part for partial removal or ksp_editor_new/ksp_editor_load for starting fresh. The agent gets no help deciding this versus other editor-mutation siblings.

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