request_spark_connected_app_action

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose that the task is dispatched and will be read and executed later by Spark, indicating asynchronous behavior. However, it does not mention side effects, error conditions, authentication requirements, or whether the tool returns an immediate acknowledgment vs. a final result.

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 and well-structured: two sentences, a clear action verb, and an illustrative list of example apps. It avoids unnecessary detail while covering the essential high-level behavior, making it easy to parse and remember.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and an unresolved output schema. The description provides the high-level purpose but fails to give enough context for correct invocation: it does not explain parameter semantics, return values, prerequisites (e.g., app must be in catalog), or what happens after dispatch. Given the moderate complexity of five parameters, the description is insufficient on its own.

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 descriptions cover 0% of parameters, and the description only gives examples of values for 'app'. There is no explanation of what 'action', 'details', 'source', or 'context' should contain, nor how they relate to each other. The agent would have to guess or infer critical fields, making parameter semantics severely deficient.

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 tool's verb ('Dispatches a task'), the source/destination (Antigravity to Gemini Spark), and the purpose (execute actions via Spark's connected apps). It also provides concrete examples of target apps, making the purpose highly distinguishable from siblings like send_spark_to_antigravity_task or get_spark_connected_apps_catalog.

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 implies the tool should be used when you need to request execution of an action through a connected app via Gemini Spark, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it. The async nature ('will read this request on sync') is mentioned, providing some usage context, but explicit guidance on alternatives is missing.

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