delegate_to_antigravity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses some behavioral traits: 'cost discipline', 'verify', marks 'yolo' as DANGEROUS, mentions 'sandbox restrictions', and provides defaults. However, it does not explain side effects, failure modes, whether it is synchronous, or permissions needed.

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 relatively concise: one sentence stating the purpose followed by a parameter list. The parameter list is efficiently formatted with brief explanations. However, the parameter list could be slightly more compact, but overall it is well-structured and not verbose.

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 has 8 parameters, one required, an output schema exists but is not shown in the description, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, verification process, or overall workflow. While parameter coverage is good, the lack of output and process explanation leaves significant gaps for a complex tool.

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 JSON schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, so the description must fully compensate. It does so by listing all 8 parameters with their names, types, and defaults, and adding explanatory notes like 'DANGEROUS' for yolo and 'stateful' for conversation_id. This provides complete semantics beyond the raw schema.

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 action ('Delegate a well-scoped subtask'), the target ('Antigravity (agy/Gemini)'), and key constraints ('under cost discipline, then verify'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on delegation of subtasks with cost discipline, which is unique among the listed siblings.

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 that this tool is for delegating well-scoped subtasks under cost discipline, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance or compare with sibling tools like 'research_fanout' or 'propose_design_questions'.

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