antigravity_gui_start_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions interacting with the 'real Antigravity GUI' and optionally notifying an existing Codex chat, but it omits critical behaviors such as whether the GUI is locked or mutated, what happens to existing conversations, required permissions, and whether the call blocks until completion.

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 three short sentences and front-loads the main action. It is efficient, though 'Optionally watch completion' is somewhat cryptic and not tied to a visible parameter.

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?

This is a complex tool with 7 parameters, zero schema description coverage, and no annotations, yet the description does not compensate with parameter semantics or behavioral detail. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the gaps around action behavior and most parameters remain significant.

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 all 7 parameters. The description only hints at the purpose of prompt/workspace via 'scoped task' and notify_codex_thread_id via 'notify the exact existing Codex chat'; it says nothing about target_id, gui_project, expected_model, or new_conversation, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Send a scoped task to the real Antigravity GUI'), making the core action clear. It partially distinguishes itself from CLI/API tooling by stating 'No CLI/API fallback for Antigravity,' but it does not differentiate from siblings like antigravity_gui_followup or codex_gui_ask.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Send a scoped task' and the note about no CLI/API fallback, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as antigravity_gui_followup, antigravity_gui_status, or codex_gui_ask. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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