start_codex_implementation

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false; the description adds the operationally critical fact that the service must be launched with --allow-write or the call cannot write, and that a verification step follows the modification. It still does not say what is modified, whether changes are reversible, or what happens on partial failure.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the enabling requirement; no filler. The second sentence is terse enough to be slightly cryptic, but nothing is wasted.

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?

This is a write-capable, 8-parameter tool with no output schema and near-zero schema documentation, yet the description omits what the tool returns, how success/failure is reported, and what most parameters mean. For a mutating tool the description leaves too much unspecified.

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 only 13% (only workspace is documented), and the description adds meaning for none of the remaining seven parameters (task, task_id, reviewer, codex_model, codex_effort, human_owner). It only loosely gestures at approved_decision, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on an 8-parameter tool.

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 action on a specific resource: letting Codex modify the project and then verify, driven by an approved decision. It is clearly distinct from the other start_* siblings (start_workflow, start_consultation, start_model_debate), though it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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 phrase 按用户已批准的决策 implies a precondition (a decision must already be approved) and the --allow-write sentence implies an environment prerequisite, which is real usage guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over the other start_* tools or how to obtain an approved decision.

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