Select Antigravity model

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the write target (bridge default), the env var it overrides (BRIDGE_DEFAULT_MODEL), the null-to-Auto semantic, and the explicit scope limitation that agy global settings are untouched. Authorization needs and error behavior remain unstated.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the null case and the scope boundary. No filler, every clause carries information.

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 no explanation, and the description covers the single parameter plus the side-effect boundary. What is missing is validation/error behavior for an invalid model ID and whether the value is verified against the agy model list at call time.

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% and there is one required parameter, so the description carries the burden. It does so reasonably: the value must be an 'exact model ID from agy models' and null persists Auto rather than being an error. The lack of an enum or concrete ID example keeps it from being a 5.

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 (persist) and resource (an exact model ID as the bridge default), which cleanly separates it from the sibling readers antigravity_get_model and antigravity_list_models. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, but the read/write split is unambiguous.

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 implies usage by describing the null-persists-Auto behavior, so an agent can infer that passing a value selects a model and passing null restores the default. However there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no instruction that the ID must first be obtained from 'agy models'.

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