ksp_flight_set_rcs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral load. It discloses the mutation (toggling RCS) and the scope (active vessel), but omits whether this requires flight scene, whether it's reversible, side effects, or return behavior. Adequate but incomplete.

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 that front-loads the action and includes the scope. No waste.

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 simple toggle tool with one boolean parameter, the description is minimally complete. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it could usefully state prerequisites (e.g., must be in flight scene) or side effects (e.g., affects the active vessel only).

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 coverage is 0% and the description doesn't explain the 'enabled' boolean. However, the parameter name is self-explanatory and there is only one parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate for a single obvious parameter.

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 (Enable or disable) and resource (stock RCS) via the active vessel action group. Clear and distinct from siblings like ksp_flight_set_sas and ksp_flight_set_controls, though it doesn't name those alternatives.

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?

Implies usage context (active vessel, action group) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or differentiation from related control tools like ksp_flight_set_controls or ksp_flight_clear_control.

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