agy_execute

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

The description discloses critical behaviors: full file-write permissions, isolated git worktree (never the real working tree), the prerequisite of AGY_MCP_ALLOW_EXECUTE=1, and the caveat that conversation adoption only works for CLI conversations, not Antigravity IDE ones. With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden.

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 five sentences long, but each sentence contributes distinct and necessary information: purpose, worktree isolation, session modes, adoption caveat, and environment requirement. It is appropriately sized given the tool's complexity, though not as concise as a two-sentence summary.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is quite thorough, covering operation, isolation, session lifecycle, and prerequisites. The main gap is the lack of information about what the tool returns (e.g., session ID or worktree path), which would be valuable for the agent to know.

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% with descriptions for all parameters, but the description adds behavioral meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that session_id continues in an existing worktree, conversation_id adopts an existing conversation into a fresh worktree, and notes that conversation_id is ignored if session_id is set. It doesn't add extra semantics for plan or workspace, so the added value is partial.

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 clearly states the purpose: 'Hand a plan/sprint to agy (Antigravity CLI) to execute with full file-write permissions.' It uses a specific verb (execute) and resource (agy CLI), and the worktree isolation detail distinguishes it from sibling tools like agy_ask, agy_list_sessions, and agy_close_session.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: pass a plan to execute, and explains how to continue a session with session_id, start fresh, or adopt a CLI conversation with conversation_id. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like agy_ask, relying on the file-write permission to imply the distinction.

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