Execute a task in an isolated AGY workspace

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

The description adds critical behavioral context beyond annotations: 'apply only validated paths to a disposable copy' and 'never merge into source.' Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description clarifies the non-destructive nature to the source while permitting changes on a disposable copy. It also discloses the validation step and optional verification, providing a comprehensive safety profile.

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, tightly packed sentence that efficiently communicates the core workflow and safety guarantees. It is front-loaded with the most important information (enabled project, schema validation, disposable copy, no merge) and contains zero fluff or redundant phrases.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, 2 enums, no output schema), the description captures the high-level workflow and safety model but omits details on parameter usage (e.g., what 'verification' options mean, the role of 'effort') and what the response will contain (since there is no output schema). It is sufficient for understanding intended use but incomplete for precise invocation without additional schema documentation.

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 25% (2 of 8 parameters have descriptions). The description mentions 'ask AGY' implying task is the instruction, but it does not explain effort, verification, timeouts, or max_response_chars. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving parameter meanings ambiguous for the agent.

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 function: 'ask AGY for schema-validated file replacements, apply only validated paths to a disposable copy, optionally run one fixed verification, and never merge into source.' This is a specific verb (execute) with resource (task on an enabled project) and distinguishes it from siblings like antigravity_ask (query) or antigravity_start_session (session start) by emphasizing the apply/never-merge behavior.

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 opens with 'For an enabled project,' implying a prerequisite and context. It says 'never merge into source,' suggesting safe testing use. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like antigravity_ask or antigravity_continue, nor does it list exclusions. The usage guidance is clear but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative comparisons.

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