Continue a Codex discussion

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing async semantics ('Returns immediately'), the required prior state transition (finishing or cancelling the active turn), and inheritance rules for optional arguments. This is real behavioral context an agent cannot infer from readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the blocking prerequisite, then the argument-inheritance rule, then the return/next-step pointer. Telegraphic but every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers return behavior itself ('Returns immediately; use discussion_read'). Combined with the preconditions and inheritance rules, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 50% (model and effort documented, message and discussionId not), so the description must compensate. It adds genuine semantics the schema lacks: model and effort are re-selectable per reply, omitted choices inherit, and changing model without effort falls back to the new model default.

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?

States a specific verb ('Send a follow-up, objection or additional evidence') against a specific resource ('an existing discussion'), which cleanly separates it from discussion_start and discussion_read. An agent can classify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit prerequisite ('Finish or cancel the active turn first') and an explicit alternative for the follow-up read ('use discussion_read'). It doesn't spell out the reply-vs-discussion_start boundary, but 'existing discussion' makes that implicit and unambiguous.

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