ksp_editor_validate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return contents (errors, warnings, cost, connectivity, part counts), which is genuine behavioral information, but it never states that this is a non-mutating check or what happens to the craft on failure, so the safety profile remains unstated.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and scope, then lists the outputs compactly. No filler, no restatement of the name, and every element carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey return values, and it does so by enumerating errors, warnings, cost, connectivity, and part counts. What remains missing is any indication of whether validation gates the launch flow or what the errors look like, but the coverage is solid for a zero-argument check.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters (empty properties, no required fields) and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add or compensate for. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 (Validate) and resource (the current editor craft), and enumerates the validation outputs. It is clear on its own, but does not differentiate itself from the closely related sibling ksp_editor_analyze, leaving the agent to infer which of the two to pick.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The phrase 'current editor craft' only weakly implies the editor-scene context, and nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over ksp_editor_analyze or when validation must be run before ksp_editor_launch.

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