codex_cancel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a meaningful trait: cancellation is confirmed only after the terminal state ('终态以后才确认取消'), suggesting asynchronous confirmation. However, it omits other behavioral details such as what happens to the job, whether cancellation is reversible, error cases, or permission requirements.

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 that states the action and immediately adds the important terminal-state caveat. Every word is purposeful, with no redundant filler.

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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the core action and a key timing nuance, but it omits edge cases such as invalid jobId, already-terminated tasks, or exact return/confirmation semantics. The phrase '终态以后才确认取消' is helpful but somewhat ambiguous about whether the call blocks until terminal state or returns immediately.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter jobId, and the tool description does not explain it. The parameter's role is inferable from its name and the tool's purpose, but the description adds no explicit meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action and resource: '请求中断正在运行的 Codex 任务' (request interruption of a running Codex task). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like codex_start, codex_status, and codex_steer. The purpose is 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 when a Codex task is running and needs to be interrupted. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, such as for tasks already in a terminal state, nor does it mention any alternative tools or preconditions. Usage context is present but only implicitly.

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