Integrate reviewed changes

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds non-obvious behavior: a mandatory human-confirmation flow via form elicitation that precedes the mutation, and a client-capability gate. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey, and it does not contradict them.

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?

Three short sentences: operation, prerequisite, and constraint, ordered by importance. No filler and no repetition of schema or annotation 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?

Covers the mutation, its prerequisite, and the confirmation gate, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. The only gap is the undefined taskId, minor given its self-evident naming and the 0% schema description coverage.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It partially does for expectedSha256 by tying it to the antigravity_preview SHA-256, but taskId is never explained and no format/source detail is added beyond the regex and pattern in 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 operation ('apply the reviewed patch') preceded by a distinct step ('request human confirmation through MCP form elicitation'), which is more precise than the title alone. The mention of antigravity_preview as the source of the SHA distinguishes it from siblings like antigravity_preview, antigravity_verify, and antigravity_discard.

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite ('Requires the SHA-256 from antigravity_preview') and the disqualifying condition ('Clients without form elicitation cannot integrate'), and rules out workarounds ('no tool argument substitutes for user confirmation'). The agent knows both when to call it and when it will fail.

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