code_workspace_codex_thread_action

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only lists actions but does not explain what happens during each action (e.g., irreversible changes, permission requirements), the effect on the thread, or any output format. The 'body' parameter is described as 'JSON object payload' with no structure guidance.

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 extremely concise, using two brief sentences and a bullet list to convey the purpose and parameters. It is well-structured with clear labeling of arguments, and every sentence adds essential information without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits critical context needed for correct invocation, such as the required structure of the 'body' parameter, error scenarios, or how to get 'workspace_id' and 'thread_id'. The tool is part of a workspace context, but the description doesn't link to related tools (e.g., code_workspace_codex_threads for listing threads). An agent would struggle to form correct requests without additional knowledge.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description's role is critical. It adds value by enumerating valid values for the 'action' parameter (rename, archive, unarchive, compact, rollback) which the schema lacks. However, it provides no additional details about 'workspace_id' or 'thread_id' (e.g., how to obtain them), and the 'body' parameter is minimally described as 'JSON object payload' without specifying required fields or examples.

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 'Perform a thread-level Codex action' and lists five specific actions (rename, archive, unarchive, compact, rollback), making the purpose clear. It distinguishes from siblings like code_workspace_codex_turn_action by specifying 'thread-level'. However, the term 'Codex' is left undefined, slightly reducing clarity for agents without domain knowledge.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as code_workspace_codex_turn_action or other workspace tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, conditions, or when the tool is inappropriate.

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