ksp_flight_warp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one important, non-obvious behavior — rejection during an active AI guidance plan — and explains why. However, it doesn't cover what happens on success, whether the change persists across scenes, or the meaning of the accepted range, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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?

Two sentences, action front-loaded ahead of the constraint. The trailing rationale ('because KSP can advance orbital state without running a reliable fly-by-wire callback for every physics step') is somewhat elaborate for an agent but still earns its place by explaining the restriction.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and one key constraint. It remains incomplete on the most important detail — what the index values other than zero actually select — which an agent needs to call it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies that rate index zero means real time; the mapping of indices 1-20 to actual warp factors (and why 20 is the maximum) is never explained, so it only partially fills the documentation gap.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Set the stock time-warp rate index.' An agent immediately knows it controls KSP time warp. It does not explicitly differentiate from any sibling, but no sibling overlaps this function, so the gap is minor.

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 a concrete when-not condition: time warp is rejected while a no-visual AI guidance plan is active, with only zero (real time) permitted. This is a real constraint that shapes invocation, though no general 'use this to speed up coasting phases' guidance or named alternative is offered.

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