fix_antigravity_workspace

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does reveal the operation is a write and that it is constrained to a workspace boundary, but it does not mention overwrite behavior, file creation, permission requirements, or what happens on failure. This is a mutation tool with minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 a single short sentence with no filler, which is positive for parsability. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete; it omits essential usage and parameter context while focusing only on the core action.

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 three required parameters, no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and a complex set of sibling tools, the description is not complete enough. It does not explain how to correctly supply paths and content, nor does it clarify boundaries or error behavior. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the input side is still inadequately documented.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It gives vague hints: 'targeted file write' suggests content and relative_path, and 'workspace boundary' suggests workspace_path. However, it does not explain the format of relative_path, the expected content encoding, or the precise role of workspace_path.

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 it applies a targeted file write within a workspace boundary, identifying the verb ('write'), the resource (files in a workspace), and a key constraint. It is distinguishable from read/inspect/diagnose siblings, though it does not explicitly name the alternative it differs from.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_antigravity_workspace_file, inspect_antigravity_workspace, or open_antigravity_workspace. The description only implies a write/fix scenario but never states conditions, exclusions, or which sibling tools to prefer in other cases.

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