ksp_flight_recover

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Request' hints the operation may be refused and 'when KSP allows it' hints at a state-dependent precondition, but neither is specified, and nothing is said about whether the flight is terminated, what scene results, or whether the action is reversible.

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 compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is under-specified rather than verbose, but structurally it is efficient.

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 stateful, potentially irreversible game action with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is too thin: it never explains the 'when KSP allows it' precondition, the result of the call, or how it differs from revert/return-to-editor behavior.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; baseline 4 applies. The empty schema is consistent with the description.

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: recovering/reverting the current flight. However it conflates two distinct operations ('recovery' vs 'revert') and does not distinguish this tool from overlapping siblings like ksp_flight_return_to_editor or ksp_flight_abort.

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?

'When KSP allows it' gestures at a precondition but never says what those conditions are, nor does it name the alternative tools an agent should consider. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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