ksp_editor_launch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the mandatory confirm gate, the default side effect of clearing occupied launch pads via stock recovery, the opt-out flag, and the asynchronous nature (returns a request, the caller must wait for FLIGHT and verify telemetry). Missing only what happens on failure or whether the craft must be validated beforehand.

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?

Four tight sentences, each earning its place: action, requirement, default behavior with opt-out, and async return/next-step instruction. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 2-parameter launch tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key gaps: required input, default side effect, and what an AI must do after the call (wait for FLIGHT, verify telemetry). It does not mention error handling or prerequisite validation, but the core operational picture is complete.

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 schema gives no parameter meaning. The description fully explains both parameters: confirm is a required gate, and auto_clear_launchpad defaults to true with a clear semantic (set false to leave the stock dialog open). This compensates for the schema gap.

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 (launch) and resource (the validated editor craft via KSP's native path), and implicitly distinguishes itself from editor-manipulation siblings like ksp_editor_validate. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling it replaces or is replaced by, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

Conveys that this is the launch step after validation, and that confirm=true is mandatory, but offers no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives such as ksp_editor_enter or ksp_flight_* tools. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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