codex_stop

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds important non-obvious details: the interruption is confirmed by an event, and the operation does not undo changes already made. It could mention error or no-op behavior, but the key consequences 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 two sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the most important behavioral caveat is stated immediately.

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 low-complexity tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, the confirmation mechanism, and the non-rollback behavior. It does not cover edge cases such as no active turn, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 provides only a required threadId string with no description, and the tool description does not explain the parameter beyond the context of a running Codex turn. However, threadId is self-descriptive and clearly maps to the target turn, so the meaning is reasonably recoverable.

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 states a specific action ('Request interruption') targeting a resource ('a running Codex turn') and is clearly distinct from siblings like codex_start, codex_resume, and codex_status. It is immediately obvious what this tool does.

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 stopping an already-running turn, but it does not explicitly state when to use it, when not to use it, or how it relates to alternatives. There is no mention of checking codex_status first or waiting for natural completion.

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