ksp_flight_guidance_update

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one real behavioral trait – the update is non-disruptive and preserves MCP control – but for a 9-parameter tool where every parameter is optional it never says whether omitted fields are preserved or reset, whether partial updates are permitted, or that an active plan is required. Those are the behaviors an agent most needs.

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 with no filler; the main purpose clause comes first and the secondary context second. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for the parameter surface it governs.

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 annotations, no output schema, nine undocumented parameters, and a stateful game-side guidance plan, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what happens to unspecified fields, what the update does to an in-progress plan, or what units the numeric parameters expect.

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, and it largely does not. It groups parameters into 'targets' (altitude/apoapsis/periapsis/latitude/longitude) and 'safety options' (gear, auto_stage, extend_seconds), but supplies no units, formats, or meaning for any of the nine fields.

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 specific verb ('Update') and a specific resource ('targets and safety options on the active game-side guidance plan'), which distinguishes it from siblings like ksp_flight_guidance_start/stop/status. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or differentiating by scenario, so it lands at clear-but-not-routing.

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?

'Useful for a no-visual real-time mission loop' implies the operating context, and 'without releasing MCP control' hints that this is the in-place alternative to stopping and restarting guidance. However, no alternative tool is named and no when-not condition is given, so usage must be inferred.

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