delegate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully discloses that agy has full tool access (shell, file reads, web) in the cwd, which signals potential side effects. However, it doesn't mention output format, execution duration, error behavior, or whether delegated runs can be destructive beyond the generic 'full tool access' warning.

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?

Two sentences deliver purpose, usage scope, and a critical behavioral warning. No wasted words, front-loaded with 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?

For a delegation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential invocation context: what to send, where it runs, and what capabilities the delegated agent has. It lacks a note on response handling or long-running task behavior, but is adequate for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

All three parameters are documented with 100% schema coverage, so the structural baseline applies. The description adds no extra semantics beyond hinting that the prompt is the complete task and that cwd defines the execution context, which the schema already communicates.

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?

Description clearly states the action (delegating to the Antigravity CLI), the resource (Antigravity CLI/agy), and the scope (heavy tasks that don't fit other tools). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by framing this as the fallback for workloads outside their coverage.

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 phrase 'for heavy tasks that don't fit the other tools' gives clear when-to-use context and implies the sibling tools are preferred for lighter or more specific jobs. It doesn't enumerate exclusions or name siblings explicitly, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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