Inject a message into an Antigravity conversation's inbox by providing the conversation ID and message, with optional sender, title, and priority fields.
Injects a message directly into any Antigravity conversation's inbox.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | ||
| sender | No | ||
| message | Yes | ||
| priority | No | ||
| conversation_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'injects directly' without revealing side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or impact on existing conversations. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action. While efficient, it omits important contextual details that could be added without significant bloat, making it slightly under-specified but not verbose.
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 tool has five parameters and zero schema coverage, the description should clarify parameter semantics and usage context. It does neither, nor does it mention output or side effects. An agent would lack essential information to invoke it correctly.
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%, so the description must compensate. It does not mention any of the five parameters (conversation_id, message, title, sender, priority), leaving their meanings and formats unexplained. This fails to add value beyond the raw schema.
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 action (inject a message) and the target (Antigravity conversation's inbox). It is specific and distinguishable from siblings like send_spark_to_antigravity_task, which focuses on tasks rather than direct message injection.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.