Resume a finished Antigravity CLI job on the same account by supplying its job ID and a new prompt, keeping session affinity for multi-turn work.
Continue a completed conversation on the same account, preserving session affinity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | No | ||
| effort | No | ||
| job_id | Yes | ||
| prompt | Yes | ||
| timeout_sec | No | ||
| permission_mode | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only asserts 'same account' and 'session affinity'. It omits permission requirements, side effects, whether a new job is created, and any hint about the 'dangerous' permission_mode option the schema exposes.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no padding or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.
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 six-parameter mutation-style tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and permission modes including 'dangerous', the description is far too thin to guide correct invocation.
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% across six parameters, including two enums and a required prompt/job_id pair, and the description explains none of them. It adds no meaning about model, effort, timeout_sec, or permission_mode beyond what the bare schema keys show.
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?
It states a verb (continue) and a resource (a completed conversation), and adds the scoping notion of 'same account' plus 'session affinity'. However, it never distinguishes this from close sibling tools like session_turn or submit_job, leaving an agent unsure whether continuation happens on a job or a session.
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 phrase 'a completed conversation' implies a precondition (the job must already be finished), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of alternatives such as session_turn or submit_job.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.