antigravity_cancel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond the name by noting that child processes are stopped and, importantly, that already-completed file changes are not reverted. This is valuable non-obvious context.

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 concise sentences, each earning its place. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by a single important caveat. No redundancy or filler.

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?

Adequate for a simple one-parameter cancellation tool, but lacks context on how to retrieve task_id, behavior if the task is already stopped, and what the return value indicates. With no output schema, some additional detail would improve completeness.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the sole task_id parameter, and the description does not mention the parameter at all. It fails to compensate by explaining how to obtain a task_id or what it references, leaving the agent to infer from the parameter name alone.

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 action and resource: 'Stop a running Antigravity task and its child processes.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like antigravity_start, antigravity_status, and antigravity_result.

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 implies this tool is for stopping a running task, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools. No exclusions or routing guidance are provided.

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