antigravity_forget

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real context beyond them: what is released (in-memory results) versus what survives (workspace). This tells the agent the operation mutates session state without destroying persisted work, which is exactly the kind of detail annotations cannot convey. It still omits reversibility of the forget action.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the effect detail second; there is no filler. The phrasing is slightly clipped and the second sentence could be tighter, but nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter session-mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the main effect but omits how to obtain taskId, whether forgetting is reversible, and what happens on an unknown id. Minimum viable but with clear gaps.

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% for the single taskId parameter, and the description never explains where taskId comes from or what form it takes (presumably returned by antigravity_delegate/antigravity_ask). A single undocumented parameter leaves the agent guessing about how to supply the required argument.

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-resource pair (forget a task) scoped to the MCP server session, which is concrete and actionable. It does not distinguish itself from the closest sibling, antigravity_cancel, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which of the two is appropriate.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as antigravity_cancel. The only usage signal is implicit in the effect statement 'releases in-memory results, preserves workspace,' which hints at intent but does not route the agent.

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