Resolve pending Codex clarification questions by submitting answers with receipt and question IDs, enabling workflow to continue without widening access.
Answer a pending Codex clarification using its receipt and question IDs. Cannot approve permissions or widen sandbox.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| answers | Yes | ||
| receiptId | Yes | ||
| questionId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds non-obvious behavioral limits: only pending clarifications can be answered, and permissions/sandbox changes are out of scope. This is valuable context beyond the annotations, though it does not describe side effects or outcome details.
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 with no filler: the first states the purpose, the second states a key limitation. Both sentences earn their place, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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?
The description covers the core operation and an important limitation, but given the nested `answers` schema, absent output schema, and no parameter descriptions, it leaves key workflow details unclear: how to construct the answers payload, where the IDs come from, and what a successful response looks like. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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%, so the description must compensate. It names receipt and question IDs as identifiers, which adds some meaning, but it does not explain the nested `answers` object structure, its key semantics, or its relationship to the top-level `questionId`. This is a significant gap for a three-parameter tool with nested objects.
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 ('Answer') applied to a specific resource ('a pending Codex clarification') and names the identifying inputs ('receipt and question IDs'). This clearly distinguishes bridge_answer from siblings like bridge_submit and bridge_receipt, and it is not a tautology.
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?
It clearly identifies the intended context: answering pending clarifications identified by receipt and question IDs. It also gives explicit exclusions ('Cannot approve permissions or widen sandbox'), but it does not name an alternative tool for those excluded actions, so it falls short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.