create_interaction

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions background mode and polling with get_interaction_status, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., state changes, resource consumption), required permissions, idempotency, or failure behavior. The description is incomplete for a creation tool with 10 parameters.

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?

Well-structured with clear bulleted list of arguments. Front-loaded with purpose. Slightly verbose in some parameter descriptions (e.g., images example), but still efficient for the number of parameters. Could trim redundant default mentions.

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 all 10 parameters and notes async behavior with background. Does not explain output shape (though output schema exists) or error conditions. For a tool with 1 required param and nested objects, the description is fairly complete but could include more on environment prerequisites and stream vs background tradeoffs.

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%, but the description thoroughly explains each parameter with examples (e.g., images format, agent default, environment options). This adds crucial meaning beyond raw schema types, fully compensating for the schema's lack of natural language descriptions.

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 'Create a new Antigravity agent interaction,' a clear verb+resource pairing. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_interaction_status, cancel_interaction, and continue_interaction by focusing on creation. The detailed parameter list reinforces the specific purpose.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., continue_interaction, build_environment_config). No mention of prerequisites, when to use background vs stream, or the need for a pre-existing environment. The description lists parameters but provides no strategic usage context.

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