cancel_codex_account_link

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

Annotations are absent, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies the action as a cancellation but says nothing about idempotency, side effects on an in-flight session, reversibility, error behavior, or auth requirements. For a cancel/destructive operation, these are material gaps.

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?

A single sentence with the verb front-loaded and no wasted words. The terseness is efficient, but it trades away behavioral detail that would materially improve the definition for an agent.

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?

Although the tool is simple (one required parameter and an output schema), the missing annotations and absent usage guidance leave notable gaps for a cancellation operation. The agent receives no signal about side effects, idempotency, or the relationship to the start/status sibling tools, which is consequential for correct invocation.

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 for the undocumented session_id parameter. The phrase 'device-auth session' gives some domain context for what the ID refers to, but it does not explain how to obtain the session_id, its expected format, or what qualifies as a cancellable session. This is only marginal compensation.

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 verb ('Cancel') and a specific resource ('Codex account-link device-auth session'), where the phrase 'device-auth session' adds useful granularity beyond just 'account link'. However, it does not explicitly call out sibling tools like start_codex_account_link or get_codex_account_link_status, relying instead on the natural contrast of the verbs.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It never mentions that this is the inverse of start_codex_account_link, when cancellation is appropriate (e.g., aborting a pending or stale device-auth flow), or whether get_codex_account_link_status should be consulted first. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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