codex_app_admin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only discloses that mutations require the unsafe RPC operator gate. It does not mention side effects, reverting changes, authorization needs, or the destructive potential of specific operations like memory.reset or plugin.uninstall, offering minimal behavioral transparency for such a broad tool.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the tool's scope and immediately adds an important operational note (the mutation gate). No unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly concise.

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 tool has a large operation list (80+ enums), no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must compensate. A one-sentence high-level overview covering many resource categories is insufficient for such complexity; it lacks per-operation details, return value expectations, and safety guidance.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'params', 'timeoutSeconds', or 'requireSupported' fields. The only connection to parameters is the vague phrase 'Typed access to ... operations,' which indirectly refers to the operation enum but adds no concrete meaning to the other parameters.

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 'Typed access to account, config, apps/plugins/skills, environment, search, memory, realtime, and remote-control app-server operations,' which clearly identifies the tool's resource scope. However, the verb 'access' is generic and doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like codex_app_rpc or codex_app_command, so it loses the sibling-distinguishing point for a top score.

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 includes a usage constraint: 'Mutations require the unsafe RPC operator gate,' which tells the agent when mutations are permitted. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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