Run general-purpose Antigravity sub-agent task

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it discloses that the call blocks until completion, enumerates the report fields returned, states the default effort level, explains background-handle behavior, and warns that headless runs auto-deny gated tools listed in denied_actions. It stops short of covering failure modes, cost/latency implications of long blocking runs, or concurrency limits.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and every subsequent sentence carries distinct operational information. The telegraphic, comma-spliced style packs a lot in but makes some clauses (headless auto-deny / auto_approve) harder to parse on first read.

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 13-parameter delegation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it explains blocking behavior, return payload fields, background retrieval via watch_task, thread resumption, permission denial in headless mode, and the edit-permission profile. Remaining gaps are sibling disambiguation against explore_task and guidance on timeout/sandbox interactions.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including background, conversation_id, auto_approve, and effort. The description adds only a couple of facts not in the schema, notably the medium default effort and the reinforced self-containment requirement for prompt, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: delegate a coding task to the agy sub-agent, with the key qualifier that it runs in accept-edits mode and may edit files. That edit capability implicitly separates it from explore_task, but the sibling is never named, so the distinction is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Gives concrete operational context: the prompt must be self-contained, background: true returns a handle to collect with watch_task, and conversation_id resumes an earlier thread. What it lacks is an explicit rule for choosing between general_task and explore_task (read-only exploration), which is the most likely sibling confusion.

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