ksp_station_build

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 that construction is live and emits per-part events, and that the result is modular, which is useful. But it omits critical mutation details: does it alter the current craft? Are there side effects or performance considerations? Not enough for a write operation with zero annotation support.

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?

Three focused sentences: purpose, modularity benefit, and live event behavior. No fluff and well front-loaded, though it could be slightly tighter.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameters, return behavior, or how the generated station interacts with existing editor content, leaving the agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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%, meaning all 7 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description does not explain any parameter's meaning or effect, leaving the agent to guess the semantics of 'live', 'pace', 'template', 'parts_per_frame', 'require_connected', and 'wait_for_completion'. This is a significant 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?

The description clearly states it generates and builds a connected stock orbital-station core in the VAB, distinguishing it from generic part-assembly tools by its station-core scope. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like ksp_editor_add_part, but the dedicated station-building purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: use this to create a modular station core. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this versus manually building a station with editor tools or other builders, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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