wrap_codex_mcp_stdio

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states that it rewrites the MCP entry, launches a wrapper that respawns the original command, and explicitly notes that a Codex CLI restart is required for the change to take effect. This covers the mutation, the new process behavior, and the required follow-up action. It could mention reversibility or impact on existing config, but the core side effects are disclosed.

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 three sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose and scope, the second explains how it works, and the third gives the required post-action. Everything is front-loaded and earns its place.

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?

The description covers the configuration file, the wrapper mechanic, and the restart requirement. It does not describe error handling or what happens if the mcp_name does not exist, but given the single parameter is fully documented and there is no output schema, the essential context for a successful call is present. Slight gap is the absence of any warning about config modification potentially needing backup, which would be nice but is not critical.

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 input schema documents the single parameter mcp_name with a clear description (the mcp_servers.<name> entry). Since schema coverage is 100%, the parameter is fully self-documenting; the description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource: it wraps a Codex CLI stdio MCP server (from ~/.codex/config.toml). It names the target file and describes the mechanism (rewrites the entry to launch mcpgo's Node wrapper). This distinguishes it from the generic sibling wrap_mcp_stdio by scoping to Codex CLI stdio servers.

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 implies the tool is for making Codex CLI stdio MCP servers restartable, which provides context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over the sibling wrap_mcp_stdio, nor any exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., that the server must already be configured in config.toml). Not misleading, but 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.