Interrupt Codex turn

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

The description adds the nuance that the cancellation applies to an 'active' turn, which implies it may not have effect on non-active turns. However, the annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to restate those. It does not clarify what happens if no active turn exists or whether this is a request versus a guaranteed cancellation, but with annotations covering the safety profile, the additional context is moderate.

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, focused sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without any filler. It is perfectly concise and well-structured for such a simple operation.

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's simplicity, the presence of annotations (destructive, idempotent) and full schema descriptions, the description provides sufficient context for invocation. It does not mention return values or error scenarios, but with no output schema and a straightforward operation, this is not a critical gap. It covers the essential action and target.

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?

Both parameters have thorough descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), including meaning and default behavior for turnId. The tool description itself adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 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 a specific action (request cancellation) on a specific resource (an active Codex turn), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like codex_start or codex_status. The verb 'request cancellation' is unambiguous and the phrase 'active Codex turn' scopes the operation appropriately.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used to stop an ongoing turn, or that one might use codex_status first to check for an active turn. The description simply states what it does without any contextual 'when-to-use' or exclusionary language.

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