Continue a Codex task

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that this is a mutating follow-up that preserves prior thread context, but it doesn't disclose the asynchronous execution model, that a pollable taskId is returned, or how invalid/expired threads are handled. Useful but incomplete behavioral coverage.

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 zero waste: purpose and identifying trait are front-loaded, and the usage guidance follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Complete enough to invoke correctly: required params, purpose, and the continue-vs-delegate choice are clear, and the waitSeconds schema hint covers the pollable-taskId return flow. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description could do more to state how results are obtained (e.g., polling via codex_task_status).

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 the schema already documents all five parameters (taskId, instruction, model, waitSeconds, reasoningEffort) with meaning. The description only reinforces that instruction is a follow-up and taskId refers to an existing thread — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Send a follow-up instruction into an existing Codex thread') and the defining trait (keeping all prior context). It differentiates from the sibling codex_delegate by explicitly rejecting re-delegating from scratch, so an agent can tell them apart without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('Use it to iterate on review feedback') and names the alternative behavior to avoid ('instead of re-delegating from scratch'), which maps to codex_delegate. The selection condition is concrete and actionable.

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