ksp_editor_update_part

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the tool mutates a part but omits whether changes are reversible, whether the part must be unlaunched/rooted, how reparenting interacts with attach_node, or what happens to fields not supplied. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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 wastes no words. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined editing given the 9-parameter surface.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with nested action_groups, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It gives no indication of return behavior, validation, or how the parameters combine, leaving the agent to guess at invocation semantics.

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 description must compensate. It loosely maps verbs to some parameters (move→position, rotate→rotation, reparent→parent_id, change stage→stage, action_groups→action_groups), but leaves snap_to_node, attach_node, and parent_attach_node unexplained, and gives no format details such as quaternion ordering for rotation or vector semantics for position.

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 gives a clear verb set (move, rotate, reparent, change stage, update action groups) applied to a specific resource (an editor part). However, it does not acknowledge overlap with siblings like ksp_editor_set_stage and ksp_editor_set_action_group, which appear to duplicate two of the listed capabilities. An agent cannot tell from the description alone which tool to prefer for a stage or action-group change.

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 (e.g. must be in the editor scene), and no routing to alternatives. Given that dedicated siblings exist for stage and action-group updates, the absence of any disambiguation is a real gap.

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