Resolve Codex approval

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

The annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint: true) and non-idempotent (idempotentHint: false). The description adds the specific decision actions (accept, acceptForSession, decline, cancel) but does not disclose behavioral details such as whether accepting triggers command execution or whether cancellation is reversible. It does not contradict 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, information-dense sentence that efficiently lists all decision actions and the approval types. There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose and decision spectrum adequately. However, it fails to mention how to obtain a requestKey or what happens after a decision (e.g., whether the command execution proceeds). The lack of an output schema means return values are unaddressed, but this is a minor gap given the simple nature of the tool.

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 schema description coverage is only 50%, with requestKey having a description and decision lacking one. The description repeats the enum values without explaining their semantic differences or the consequences of each choice. It adds no meaning beyond the schema for requestKey, merely referencing 'pending approval' without clarifying how to obtain or use the key.

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 explicit verbs (accept, decline, cancel) and names the resource (pending Codex command-execution or file-change approval), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like codex_list_approvals by indicating this tool resolves rather than lists approvals.

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 used when a pending approval exists, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like obtaining a requestKey. There is no guidance on when to choose acceptForSession over accept, or when to cancel rather than decline.

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