antigravity_start

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the asynchronous return behavior and states that the bridge never bypasses Antigravity permissions, but it does not elaborate on potential side effects of delegated tasks, failure modes, or the meaning of the accept-edits mode beyond a brief caveat.

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 compact and focused, using four short sentences to convey purpose, prerequisites, mode guidance, and return behavior. Every sentence contributes value and there is no redundant or filler wording.

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?

The description is reasonably complete for an asynchronous start operation: it states prerequisites, return behavior, and the need to poll the result tool. However, it lacks detail about the optional parameters, how long the task may run, what could go wrong, and how the status/cancel siblings fit into the workflow, leaving some context gaps for an agent.

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 description adds some meaning for cwd and mode, but the schema has six parameters and the description does not explain prompt, model, conversation_id, or timeout_seconds. Given the 0% schema description coverage, the description insufficiently compensates by only partially covering the required and key behavioral parameters.

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 identifies the action as delegating a task to the local Antigravity CLI, distinguishes this from its sibling tools by noting that it returns a task_id immediately and directs polling antigravity_result. It also clarifies mode choices, making the purpose specific and actionable.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: an authenticated CLI and absolute working directory are required, plan mode is for analysis, and accept-edits mode should only be used when file edits are intended. It tells the agent to poll antigravity_result after receiving the task_id, though it does not explicitly contrast with antigravity_status or antigravity_cancel.

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