ksp_editor_new

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key destructive behavior: the current editor craft is removed. However, it says nothing about unsaved-change loss, whether the editor scene is entered automatically, or what happens if no craft is loaded.

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?

One compact sentence with no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded ahead of the destructive side-effect. Slightly dense but not wasteful.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters. For a state-changing editor tool the description should explain prerequisites (e.g., must be in the editor) and the resulting state, but it omits all of that.

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 three parameters (name, description, editor_mode). The description only loosely touches editor_mode via 'VAB or SPH' (already in the enum) and gives no meaning for name or description, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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 and resource ('Start a new empty VAB or SPH craft') plus the destructive side-effect of removing the current craft. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not distinguish itself from siblings like ksp_editor_clear or ksp_editor_enter.

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?

No indication of when to use this versus ksp_editor_clear, ksp_editor_enter, or ksp_editor_load. An agent must infer that this is the 'fresh start' path, which leaves real ambiguity among the many editor siblings.

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