ksp_flight_guidance_start

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses several important behaviors: it continuously refreshes controls in KSP frames, owns the fly-by-wire lease, reports preflight/ignition/staging state, and requires confirm=true. It does not mention what happens on failure, lease conflicts, or how to stop the plan (though a sibling stop tool exists).

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?

The description is two dense sentences that front-load the core action and key constraints. Every clause adds information; no filler.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the main behavior and profile enum but leaves six parameters unexplained, fails to say how to stop or update the plan, and does not describe return values or state reporting format. A user cannot fully predict the tool's behavior from this description alone.

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 lists the four profile enum values, but provides no meaning for confirm, auto_stage, max_seconds, target_altitude, target_apoapsis, or target_periapsis. The schema also has additionalProperties: true, and the description does not clarify whether extra parameters are accepted or how they are used.

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 states a specific verb (start) and resource (game-side closed-loop guidance plan) and names four profiles (ascent, orbit, landing, node_burn). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like ksp_flight_guidance_status, ksp_flight_guidance_update, and ksp_flight_guidance_stop.

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 description implies usage by listing profiles and noting it is controlled entirely through KSP state without screenshots, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ksp_flight_maneuver_burn_start or ksp_flight_guidance_update. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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