ksp_editor_save

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Save as a real .craft file' hints at a persistence distinction, but it says nothing about overwrite semantics, default path/name behavior when parameters are omitted, permissions, or failure modes — significant gaps for a write 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 efficient sentence with no waste, front-loading the action and target. It is appropriately short, though brevity here borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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?

A mutation/persistence tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage needs the description to compensate, and it does not — it omits default behavior, overwrite handling, and return expectations.

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?

All three parameters (name, path, overwrite) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. It is especially unclear what happens when name/path are omitted, since all parameters are optional — the description adds no meaning beyond the bare schema.

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+resource: saving the current editor craft as a real KSP .craft file. The phrase 'current editor craft' makes the operating context clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like ksp_editor_apply_craft or ksp_editor_new, but the save-to-disk framing is discernible.

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 when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites (e.g. must be in the editor scene, must have a craft loaded). The agent must infer that this is the terminal step after building a craft, with no mention of alternatives.

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