Cancels the active execution turn, sends an interrupt, and waits up to 5 seconds for confirmation while blocking new work to avoid concurrent write conflicts.
取消当前运行中的 Codex 执行轮次. 发送中断指令并等待最多 5 秒确认. 在旧命令确认停止前保持忙碌状态以防止并发写冲突.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| turnId | Yes | 轮次 ID | |
| threadId | Yes | 会话 ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavior: it sends an interrupt, waits up to 5 seconds for confirmation, and keeps the system busy until the old command confirms it stopped to avoid concurrent write conflicts. It omits what happens if the 5-second wait expires or how failure is reported.
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?
Three compact sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by the wait behavior and the concurrency rationale. No sentence is redundant.
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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action, its timeout, and its concurrency side effect well. It could be more complete by describing the outcome when cancellation times out or the target turn is not running.
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 coverage is 100%, so threadId and turnId are already documented as the session ID and turn ID. The description adds no further meaning about which turn to cancel or how the IDs relate to the running turn, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb and resource: cancel the currently running Codex execution turn, and it is clearly distinct from siblings like codex_send or codex_poll. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied: you cancel a running turn. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over alternatives, no prerequisite conditions, and no note on what to do if there is no running turn.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.