Interrupt a Codex task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds important non-obvious context: the thread survives interruption and can be resumed via codex_continue. It does not cover edge cases like interrupting when no turn is running, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the key consequence (thread survives, resumable) is delivered in the second sentence efficiently.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what is interrupted and what happens afterward. It does not explain behavior when there is no in-flight turn, but given the tool's simplicity and the sibling context, it is sufficiently complete.

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%, and the parameter taskId is already clearly described as 'Task whose in-flight turn should be stopped.' The tool description adds no new parameter detail, which is acceptable since the schema fully documents the only parameter.

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 verb ('Stop') and resource ('the turn Codex is currently running for a task'), which clearly identifies the tool's action. It also distinguishes itself from related siblings like codex_continue by noting the thread survives, making the purpose 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 implicitly provides usage context by stating that codex_continue can pick the thread back up, which signals this tool is for pausing rather than terminating a task. It does not explicitly list exclusions or compare with siblings like codex_task_status, but the context is clear enough for most agents.

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