Shell commands with Antigravity

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the risk profile is partly covered. The description still adds real behavioral value beyond them: the required permission, and the specific failure mode (permission-denied error naming the rule to add). It does not elaborate on what executing arbitrary shell commands can affect.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and mode switch, then the prerequisite. No filler; every clause carries actionable information.

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 destructive, open-world shell tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational facts: the mode switch, the permission prerequisite, and the error behavior. It does not address execution environment or side-effect scope, which would round it out fully.

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%, so every parameter including `execute`, `cwd`, `model`, and `timeoutSec` is already documented in the schema. The description restates the `execute` semantics but adds no syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb pair (write or run shell commands) tied to an explicit mode switch (`execute is true`), with the resource being shell commands generated by Antigravity. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like antigravity_web_search, antigravity_analyze_media, or antigravity_models.

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?

Explains the two usage modes (draft-only vs. run) and names the activation condition for the run mode. It also supplies the prerequisite (`command` permission in agy's settings.json). It does not compare against sibling tools such as plain `antigravity` for non-shell tasks, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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