Cancel Antigravity task

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent already knows this is a state-changing but non-destructive operation. The description adds the meaningful distinction between cancelling a queued item and killing a live process, but it does not say what happens on failure, whether cancellation is reversible, or what state the task ends in. Terminating a process sits in mild tension with destructiveHint=false, though this is a hint-scope ambiguity rather than a clear contradiction.

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 well-formed sentence with the two operating modes front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers both cancel paths but leaves open the practical questions an agent faces: behavior on an already-finished task, required permissions, and effects on subsequent antigravity_result/antigravity_status calls.

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?

There is a single required taskId parameter and 0% schema description coverage, so the description would ideally clarify which id it expects. It names no parameter at all; the schema's uuid format and pattern do the documenting instead, making the description neutral rather than additive.

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 pair (cancel/terminate) and the exact targets (a queued task, its local agy process), which is more informative than the title alone. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings like antigravity_discard or antigravity_cleanup, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Phrasing implies the tool applies to a queued task or a running local process, which is a useful contextual hint. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the alternatives (discard, cleanup) for stopping or removing work.

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