codex_interrupt_turn

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Interrupt a running Codex turn' and suggests polling after. It does not describe whether the interrupt is synchronous or asynchronous, whether it requires authentication, what side effects occur (e.g., resource cleanup), or any rate limits. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the full behavioral implications.

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 concise with two sentences covering purpose and a usage hint. It is front-loaded with the core action. There is no extraneous information, though the phrase 'Next poll status until terminal evidence is visible' could be considered slightly ambiguous but still efficient.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not described), the description lacks completeness. It does not explain valid parameter combinations, the meaning of timeout_seconds, or the expected output (though output schema exists). The instruction to poll is helpful but insufficient to fully guide an agent.

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 compensate. It vaguely groups parameters into 'direct ids' (likely thread_id and turn_id) and 'durable operation/workflow context' (operation_id and workflow_id), but does not individually define them. The timeout_seconds parameter is not mentioned at all. An agent would not know the meaning or valid combinations of these parameters from the description 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 tool's purpose: 'Interrupt a running Codex turn'. It specifies the verb (interrupt) and resource (running Codex turn) and indicates two ways to specify the target (direct ids or durable operation/workflow context). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like codex_get_turn_status or codex_start_chat, which serve different functions.

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 a clear use case: 'Use this for explicit cancellation or stop conditions.' It also provides a follow-up action: 'Next poll status until terminal evidence is visible.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but given its unique function among siblings, this is sufficient.

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