Run Antigravity

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the description's mention of 'explicitly requested edits' is consistent. The description adds genuine non-obvious traits beyond annotations: the 4-call concurrency limit with BUSY responses, shared workspace files across parallel calls, and the shared account/quota semantics.

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?

Five sentences, each earning its place: core purpose, use cases, return contract, concurrency limit, and shared-state caveat. The core action is front-loaded and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by stating the return value (conversation_id). It covers concurrency, side effects, and shared state for a 7-parameter mutation tool. The only notable gap is that the follow-up path to antigravity_continue is hinted at rather than explicitly stated.

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 high (86%), so the schema documents most parameters. The main description adds a small amount of cross-call semantics for workspace ('Parallel calls share workspace files') not present in the parameter docs, but otherwise relies on the 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?

States a specific verb ('Start') plus resource ('one Antigravity CLI turn') with a differentiating qualifier ('in a new conversation'). This distinguishes it from sibling antigravity_continue, and the mention of returning a conversation_id reinforces that separation.

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?

Gives three concrete use contexts: repository research, second opinion, and explicitly requested edits. It does not explicitly name the alternative for follow-up conversations or state when not to use it, though 'new conversation' strongly implies the exclusion.

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