ksp_flight_moon_soft_landing_start

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 discloses useful behavior (checks active body, performs deorbit and powered descent, auto-stages/ignites engines, exposes height_agl and touchdown events) and a safety gate (confirm=true). However, it omits key traits: what happens on failure, whether it's abortable, permissions/side effects, and the max_seconds timeout 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?

Single dense sentence front-loads the action and condition, with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though cramming many behaviors into one sentence slightly reduces readability.

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 an 8-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description should do more. It covers the core what/when and required confirm, but leaves most parameters undocumented and omits output/event details beyond naming height_agl and touchdown events. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 13%, so the description must compensate for seven undocumented parameters. It mentions only 'confirm=true' and implicitly 'auto_stage' via 'automatically stages/ignites', leaving deploy_gear, max_seconds, target_latitude/longitude, and gear_deploy_altitude unmentioned and thus semantically opaque to the agent.

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 ('start') and a specific resource ('game-side Mun powered-descent controller'), with clear conditions ('after the vessel is at Mun'). Distinguishes itself from siblings like ksp_moon_landing_plan (planning) and ksp_flight_guidance_start (generic guidance) by its Mun-specific descent scope, though it doesn't name those alternatives 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?

Gives one clear precondition ('after the vessel is at Mun') and notes confirm=true is required, but does not say when NOT to use it or how it relates to alternatives like ksp_moon_landing_plan or ksp_flight_guidance_start. Usage is implied by the precondition rather than fully guided.

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