antigravity_delegate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is asynchronous ('return immediately with a job ID') and warns about edit permissions ('Enable edits only when authorized'). It does not mention rate limits or exhaustive side effects, but covers the most important behavioral traits for a delegated job starter.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose first and supporting usage guidance following. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler 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?

The description covers the essentials for starting a job and the main prompt-level guidance, but it omits several parameters (cwd, sandbox, timeout_seconds) and does not mention following up via antigravity_check. Given the tool's async nature and six parameters, the description is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful guidance for prompt, conversation_id, and allow_edits ('Give one complete goal', 'Pass a previous conversation_id', 'Enable edits only when authorized'). However, cwd, sandbox, and timeout_seconds are not addressed, leaving notable ambiguity for a tool with six parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Start a delegated Antigravity job and return immediately with a job ID.' This clearly conveys the tool's primary function and distinguishes it from the sibling antigravity_check tool, which is presumably for status retrieval.

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 offers clear usage context: 'Give one complete goal with constraints and expected completion evidence.' It also explains when to use conversation_id and when to enable edits. However, it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use this tool relative to antigravity_job or antigravity_check.

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