Steer local Codex turn

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, covering the fact that this mutates and can be destructive. The description adds 'authorized' as a prerequisite but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or interaction with the turn beyond adding instructions. It adds marginal value beyond the annotations.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action verb ('Send') and immediately conveys the target. There is zero fluff; every word contributes to meaning.

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?

With three required parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description fails to explain parameter roles. It also does not clarify what 'authorized' means, how to identify a turn, or what happens after sending instructions. While an output schema exists (not shown), the missing parameter semantics and lack of usage context make this incomplete for an agent to call correctly.

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?

The description does not explain any of the three parameters (thread_id, turn_id, prompt). With schema_description_coverage at 0%, the description was the only chance to clarify that thread_id identifies the conversation, turn_id identifies the specific turn, and prompt carries the additional instructions. It offers no such detail, leaving the agent to guess.

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 states a specific verb ('Send'), a resource ('Codex turn'), and the intent ('additional instructions'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like start_codex_turn (which initiates) and interrupt_codex_turn (which halts) by focusing on adding input to an existing active turn.

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 phrase 'to an authorized active Codex turn' implies it should only be used when a turn is already running and authorized, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like start_codex_turn for new turns. Guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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