call_antigravity_multimodal

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: no indication of whether the call is synchronous, what permissions/subscription checks occur, whether it hits rate limits, or what side effects it has. The only behavioral hint is 'via active subscription,' which implies an auth prerequisite but is not elaborated.

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?

It is short (one sentence), but brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness. The leading phrase 'Symmetrical tool' is cryptic jargon placed in the most prominent position, and the rest of the sentence is vague about the actual operation.

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 presence of an output schema means return values needn't be explained, but everything else is missing: parameter semantics, selection guidance against near-duplicate siblings, and any behavioral context for a tool with zero annotation coverage. An agent could not reliably call this tool from the definition alone.

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 two required parameters (media_path, instruction), and the description adds no information about either. It does not say what path formats are accepted, whether URLs vs local paths work, or how the instruction is interpreted/constrained.

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 says Codex requests Google Antigravity (Gemini Flash) for 'media or context distillation,' which gives a rough sense of the resource and intent. However, it never states what the call actually produces or returns, and the opaque phrase 'Symmetrical tool' adds no clarity for an agent that lacks context on the Codex/Antigravity pairing.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. This is especially costly given siblings like antigravity_inspect_media and antigravity_distill_context that appear to cover exactly the 'media or context distillation' capabilities mentioned, leaving the agent unable to choose between them.

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