ksp_flight_maneuver_burn_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the burn is 'confirmed, game-side', finite, aligns to the node burn vector, estimates duration, and exposes ignite/burn/complete phases via telemetry. However, it doesn't state side effects like fuel consumption, what happens on abort, or whether it locks controls.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence that efficiently packs the core operation, alignment, estimation, and telemetry phases. No wasted words.

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?

Covers the high-level operation and telemetry phases but, lacking an output schema and annotations, it leaves behavioral details (permissions, side effects on abort, control locks) and all parameter semantics undocumented, making it only minimally complete for a 4-param mutation tool.

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 mentions 'confirmed' burn (likely the confirm param) but provides no explanation for throttle, node_index, or max_seconds, leaving three undocumented parameters. The schema only gives types and ranges, not meaning.

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+resource: starting a finite-burn controller for a native KSP maneuver node, including alignment, duration estimation, and phase telemetry. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ksp_flight_guidance_start and ksp_flight_add_maneuver_node by focusing on executing a node burn, though it could more explicitly name the difference from ksp_flight_guidance_start.

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 (for a maneuver node burn) but doesn't say when to choose this over alternatives like ksp_flight_guidance_start or ksp_flight_set_controls, nor does it mention prerequisites such as requiring an existing node. No explicit when-not guidance.

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