codex_abort

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

Annotations already flag the operation as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds the qualification that only queued or running tasks can be canceled, which is useful behavioral context. It does not detail side effects or response behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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?

One short sentence that immediately communicates the action and scope. No filler words or redundant repetition.

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 cancellation tool with destructive annotations, the description provides enough to understand the basic call. Gaps include no information about expected response, error behavior for invalid task IDs, or side effects beyond the destructive hint. Given the annotations carry safety information, this is acceptable but not thorough.

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%, and the description does not mention task_id at all. The parameter is self-evident from the tool name and required schema, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's type and format constraints.

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 ('Request cancellation') on a specific resource ('Codex task') with a scoping qualifier ('queued or running'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like codex_status and codex_start_task.

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 provides clear context for when to use it (queued or running tasks), implying not to use it for completed tasks. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not conditions beyond the state qualifier.

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