Interrupt Codex Agent

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses idle no-op behavior, which is useful and consistent with idempotentHint. However, it does not describe concrete effects of an interruption (e.g., whether work is lost or whether agent_resume is needed). With annotations already marking it destructive and not read-only, the bar is partially met.

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?

One tightly written sentence states the action and key edge case with no filler. The most useful scoping information is front-loaded.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations that already convey read-only/destructive/idempotent traits, the description covers the core usage and the idle edge case. It could mention how to reverse or recover from an interrupt, but this is not essential for invoking the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention agentId at all, so it must compensate for the missing parameter guidance. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but no additional semantics or format constraints are given.

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 uses a specific verb ('Interrupt') and resource ('a worker's active turn'), making the tool's action immediately recognizable and distinct from sibling tools like agent_start and agent_resume. It also clarifies the operational scope (active vs idle), so purpose ambiguity is minimal.

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?

It implies usage when the worker is active and warns that idle calls are no-ops, but it never names alternatives or explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use cases. The guidance is context rather than routing.

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