codex_adopt_workflow_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the action and a follow-up step. It does not disclose side effects, error behavior, authorization needs, or rate limits. For a mutating tool, more transparency is needed.

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 sentences, under 50 words, and front-loads the core action. It is concise but the first sentence could be clearer about 'Plan Mode candidate' and 'workflow thread' for a broader audience.

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?

Given 6 parameters (3 required) with no descriptions, and an output schema not explained, the description is incomplete. It provides purpose and a usage hint but fails to cover parameter meanings, return values, or error handling. The agent would need external knowledge to use this tool effectively.

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 explain any of the 6 parameters. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory (e.g., workflow_id, candidate_turn_id), but the lack of any description or hints means the agent must guess. This is inadequate.

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 clearly states the verb 'adopt' and the resource 'valid newer Plan Mode candidate', and specifies it is within a workflow thread. It provides a condition for usage, which adds context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like codex_approve_plan or codex_execute_plan, leaving slight ambiguity.

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 gives explicit conditions: 'Use this only when status or diagnostics reports an adoptable plan' and advises 'Next poll codex_get_workflow_status'. This provides clear context on when to use and what to do afterward. It lacks mention of when not to use or alternative tools, but still offers strong guidance.

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