Continue a project AGY conversation

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

The description says the tool will 'persist the result', which indicates a write/mutating side effect, while annotations declare readOnlyHint: true. This is a direct annotation contradiction. The description also doesn't explain what persistence means to the user or how the returned data is materialized.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. However, the brevity causes important context to be omitted, and the phrase 'persist the result' is compact but ambiguous.

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 tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and sparse schema descriptions, yet the natural-language description only tells the agent what it generally does. It doesn't explain return shapes, response truncation, timeout behavior, active-conversation selection semantics, or how this relates to the sibling session-management and execution tools.

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 only 29%, and the description does not make up for the gap. It explains there is a choice between a specified conversation and the active one, but it doesn't describe prompt, effort, conversation_id, timeout_seconds, max_response_chars, or how project_root is used.

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 names a specific action ('continue') and a specific resource ('a specified conversation or the project's active AGY conversation'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like start_session or get_transcript. The persistence clause adds a useful goal element, making the tool's purpose practically unambiguous.

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?

It implies the tool should be used when an existing conversation already exists, but it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over antigravity_start_session, antigravity_ask, or antigravity_get_transcript. No exclusions or prerequisites are given beyond the ability to target either a specified conversation or the active one.

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