Send new Codex turn

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and open-world behavior, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. However, it adds only a state constraint ('no turn active') without explaining what 'authorized' means, potential side effects like command execution, or how approval flow (given sibling codex_resolve_approval) interacts. Neutral but somewhat thin.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with action and usage. Every word earns its place and is highly scannable.

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?

While purpose and usage are clear, the tool has 8 parameters and no output schema. The description doesn't explain what the function returns, how to handle approval requests, or what distinguishes an 'authorized thread'. Sibling tools like codex_wait and codex_resolve_approval imply a larger workflow, but this description alone leaves some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3.

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 specific verbs ('Resume', 'start a new turn') with a clear resource ('Codex thread'), and differentiates itself from the sibling tool codex_steer by explicitly stating its scope. It clearly states what the tool does and when it applies.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('only when no turn is active') and names the alternative for the opposite case ('use codex_steer for an in-flight turn'). This is exactly the kind of direct usage guidance needed.

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