Load Saved Flight

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations: it warns that the current flight is discarded without prompting, explains that the call blocks until SimConnect responds again, notes the wait is bounded, and cautions that load time can vary. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains focused. The additional paragraphs about blocking behavior and measured timing earn their place, though the internal references like `_wait_for_sim_responsive` add a slight implementation-detail flavor.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with a rich annotation set and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, use case, blocking semantics, timing expectations, and the no-prompt discard behavior. Nothing essential is missing 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 100% and the schema already documents the `path` parameter as an absolute path to a .FLT file. The description adds context about saved flights but not new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: loading a saved flight and replacing the current one. The .FLT file reference and 'saved flight' language distinguish it from the sibling msfs_load_flight_plan, and the replacement behavior is unique among the sibling set.

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?

It explicitly states when to use it: 'restore a known starting state before a test run.' It does not name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is clear and the destructive consequence is called out.

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