codex_interrupt_turn

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states interruption occurs but does not clarify whether it is destructive, what side effects occur, or authorization requirements. The output schema may help, but the description itself lacks sufficient behavioral context.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every phrase adds value. No redundant or vague statements.

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 has 5 optional parameters with no schema descriptions and an output schema exists, the description is minimal but adequate. It covers the parameter purpose but omits preconditions, error scenarios, or return value expectations, which the output schema may partially address.

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 add meaning. It notes that IDs can be 'direct thread/turn ids or durable operation/workflow context', which maps to the four optional ID parameters. However, it does not describe timeout_seconds or provide constraints like mutual exclusivity, leaving some gaps.

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 action (interrupt), the resource (a running Codex turn), and the mechanism (through MCP-owned subprocess). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on status, starting workflows, or other actions.

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 explains that the tool accepts direct thread/turn IDs or durable operation/workflow context, guiding selection of parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like codex_get_turn_status or codex_get_operation_status, nor does it list exclusions.

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