antigravity_continue

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavioral traits: synchronous execution, a bounded timeout guard, automatic conversion to a background job if still running, and support for two execution modes (YOLO autonomous execution vs terminal sandboxing. It does not mention return payload shape, error behavior, or permissions, but it offers far more transparency than a typical terse mutation tool description.

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 three compact sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the behavioral caveats are packed efficiently into the subsequent clauses.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the key execution modes, timeout guard, and background-job fallback behavior, and the schema fully documents all parameters. What is missing is an explicit mention of how to retrieve results or how the background-job conversion connects to sibling job tools. That gap is real but moderate, and the schema already hints at background-job ID returns.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is already 3; the description adds value beyond the schema by framing yolo and read_only as two execution modes ('YOLO autonomous execution' vs 'lightweight terminal sandboxing') and by explaining the timeout behavior as an auto-conversion to a background job. It does not elaborate every parameter, but the high schema coverage makes that unnecessary.

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 the core purpose: 'CONTINUE an existing Antigravity conversation by ID', which identifies both the action and the specific resource. It is distinct from starting a new conversation, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools like antigravity_start or antigravity_start to reinforce the contrast. That differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: you have an existing conversation ID and want to continue it. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or point to siblings like antigravity_job_status/result for background follow-up. The usage case is inferred from 'by ID' rather than directly contrasted with alternatives.

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