codex_adopt_workflow_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses idempotency and non-execution behavior, but omits side effects, permission requirements, or state constraints. It adds some transparency but lacks depth.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and key behaviors. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (idempotency, multiple required parameters, workflow adoption), the description is incomplete. It does not explain prerequisites, output, or effect on workflow state, though the output schema may partially compensate.

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%, yet the description provides no parameter details. Key parameters like candidate_plan_hash and adoption_note are left unexplained, forcing the agent to infer meaning from names alone.

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 'newer valid Plan Mode candidate' from the same Codex thread into an existing durable workflow. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it never starts execution, differentiating it from codex_execute_plan and similar tools.

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 specifies idempotency by workflow and plan hash and clarifies it does not initiate execution, giving context for when to call it. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like codex_start_plan_workflow or state prerequisites.

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