Finish an Antigravity account started with add_antigravity_submit. Creates the GCP project needed before the account can serve LLM requests. Idempotent — safe to retry; already-onboarded accounts return their project_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: what actually happens (GCP project creation) and the return behavior for already-onboarded accounts (project_id).
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and consequence, then the idempotency guarantee. No filler; every sentence adds an operational fact.
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?
No output schema exists, yet the description covers the meaningful return case (project_id for onboarded accounts) and the idempotency contract. The only remaining gap is the identity/format of account_id, which is left entirely to the bare schema.
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?
One required parameter (account_id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema does not explain it and neither does the description. The text implies an account context but never clarifies what account_id is or where to obtain it.
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?
Specific verb and resource ('Finish an Antigravity account') with a named sibling as the antecedent ('started with add_antigravity_submit') and the concrete downstream effect ('Creates the GCP project'). An agent can distinguish it from add_antigravity_submit/add_antigravity_start without opening a schema.
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?
The description establishes the prerequisite workflow step by referencing add_antigravity_submit and the condition under which the tool is needed (before the account can serve LLM requests). It does not name an explicit alternative or a when-not case, but the sequencing is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
