Delegate a task to Antigravity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the async non-blocking nature, the detached background job behavior, and the effect of auto_approve on permissions. It could improve by noting whether there are rate limits or resource implications, but covers the key behavioral traits well.

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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the key async behavior. Every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly more structured by grouping parameter guidance at the end.

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?

Given the complexity (10 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description does a good job covering the key decisions: async behavior, claim mechanism, prompt construction, auto_approve risk. Minor gaps: no return value description, no error handling guidance, but overall sufficient for a tool that delegates to another agent.

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 50%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning beyond the schema for key parameters: explains prompt must be a complete brief (schema only says 'self-contained brief'), claim means path reservation, auto_approve means skip permissions. It does not document all 10 parameters (cwd, mode, model, effort, add_dirs, timeout_seconds), but the core behavioral params are well explained.

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 starts with a specific verb-resource pair ('Hand a task to Antigravity') and immediately clarifies the async, non-blocking behavior ('returns immediately with a task_id -- it does NOT block'). This clearly distinguishes it from synchronous siblings like coop_status or ag_task_wait.

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 explicitly tells the agent to 'keep working on your own part meanwhile' and explains when to use claim ('locks paths for Antigravity up front so you stay off them') and auto_approve ('passes --dangerously-skip-permissions so it can edit unattended'). It also instructs how to write the prompt as a self-contained brief, providing clear when-to and how-to guidance.

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