reinject_badge

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It hints that the action mutates the host application's UI ('üst menü çubuğuna ... enjekte eder'), which is useful, but it never states side effects, required permissions, what happens if a badge already exists (left to the schema's 'force' field), or what the tool returns on success or failure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action and target stated immediately. The parenthetical gloss of 'rozet' is mildly redundant but helpful for a non-obvious term, so there is little waste.

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 tool is simple (0 required params, no output schema, no annotations) and the description conveys the core action. However, for a UI-mutating operation with no structured safety metadata, the absence of preconditions and expected outcomes leaves a meaningful gap.

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 100% and the single optional 'force' parameter is already explained in the schema ('Zaten rozet varsa bile zorla yeniden kurar'). The description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and object in Turkish: re-injecting and refreshing the live quota badge ('canlı kota göstergesi (rozetini)') in the top menu bar of the Antigravity Desktop window. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from the read-only siblings get_quota_status and get_instance_status, though it does not explicitly name them as alternatives.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'yeniden' (again) and 'tazeler' (refreshes) – one can infer the tool is for repairing a missing or stale badge. There is no explicit statement of when to call it versus get_quota_status, and no prerequisites or exclusions (for example, whether the desktop app must be running).

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