ksp_flight_add_maneuver_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does disclose the confirmation gate and the delta-v coordinate frame, which are useful behavioral facts, but omits whether the node is appended to existing nodes, whether the call is idempotent, what happens on failure, or any rate/rate-limit behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences, action first, the coordinate convention second. No filler and nothing buried.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and five undocumented parameters, the description leaves real gaps: the meaning and units of 'ut', sign conventions, and whether the node is added alongside existing nodes. It covers the confirmation requirement and delta-v frame but not the full call contract.

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 usefully fixes the coordinate convention (radial-plus, normal-plus, prograde) and units (m/s) for three of the five parameters, but says nothing about 'ut' (epoch/units) or the required 'confirm' flag beyond the passing phrase 'after explicit confirmation.'

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: 'Create one native KSP patched-conic maneuver node.' This distinguishes it from ksp_flight_maneuver_nodes (list), ksp_flight_clear_maneuver_nodes (remove), and ksp_flight_maneuver_burn_start (execute), though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

The only usage constraint given is 'after explicit confirmation,' which is an operational gate rather than when-to-use guidance. Nothing says when to place a node versus using ksp_flight_transfer_plan or executing an existing burn, nor what the preconditions are.

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