Disable AGY for one project

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it removes a specific rule, marks the project disabled, and preserves local session/run history. This complements idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false by clarifying that while a trusted rule is removed, user data is not destroyed.

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 sentence that starts with the action and carries no filler. Every phrase earns its place: scope ('one project'), specificity ('exact rule'), and preservation guarantees ('preserve all local session...').

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?

For a n-orderable tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the operation and its boundary conditions. It misses mentions of reversibility or whether running sessions are affected, but the essential behavior is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 100%, and the sole parameter project_root already has a clear schema description ('Absolute root directory...'). The tool description does not repeat or extend the parameter details, so it adds no extra param-level meaning, but the baseline is appropriate due to high schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('one project's exact Antigravity trusted workspace and read_file rule'), which distinguishes this tool from siblings like antigravity_enable_project and antigravity_project_status. It also clarifies what is preserved ('all local session and run history'), making the intent 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?

The description implies usage context by emphasizing 'only one project's exact' rule, which suggests this is the targeted single-project disable tool rather than a broader operation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use it, such as the relationship to antigravity_enable_project or project_status.

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