ksp_editor_enter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the method (in-game bridge) and clarifies it's not UI automation, which is useful. But it doesn't state whether this requires specific game state, potential side effects, or what happens if already in the editor. The schema's save_folder parameter hints at title-screen handling, but the description doesn't elaborate.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without any extraneous words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and only 33% parameter schema coverage, the description is somewhat lacking. It doesn't explain the return value, potential errors, or the effect of the timeout parameter. However, it does clarify the mechanism, which is a key piece of context. More detail would improve completeness.

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 33%. The description adds no information about the timeout, editor_mode, or save_folder parameters beyond what the schema provides. The schema already documents save_folder and defines enum for editor_mode; timeout is undocumented in both. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial schema coverage and no added parameter semantics.

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 action (enter the editor) on a specific resource (KSP VAB or SPH) and identifies the mechanism (in-game bridge, not UI automation). It distinguishes itself from sibling editor tools like ksp_editor_new or ksp_editor_apply_craft, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 'without visual UI automation' implies this is the preferred way to enter the editor, providing some context. However, there's no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ksp_editor_new, or prerequisites such as being at the title screen or in a save.

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