ksp_flight_set_controls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It introduces the key concept of a 'short-lived lease,' but never explains what the lease means in practice—duration semantics, whether it auto-expires, how it interacts with ksp_flight_clear_control, or what happens if controls are set without renewal. For a 13-parameter flight-control tool this is a large disclosure gap.

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 efficient sentence with no redundancy and the action front-loaded. It is not padded, though it is arguably too terse for the tool's complexity.

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 13-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It leaves key mechanics—lease duration, expiry behavior, defaults for the many optional axes—completely unexplained.

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 for all 13 undocumented parameters. It names the control axes (throttle, pitch, yaw, roll, translation, wheels, gear, brakes, lights), providing only a loose mapping, and omits lease_seconds entirely along with any value ranges or units.

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 (Set) and resource (fly-by-wire control lease) and enumerates the control axes affected, so an agent can tell roughly what it does. It stops short of distinguishing itself from sibling setters like ksp_flight_set_sas or ksp_flight_set_rcs, which also configure flight controls.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as ksp_flight_set_sas, ksp_flight_set_rcs, or ksp_flight_clear_control, nor any prerequisite (e.g., must be in flight). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and sibling list.

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