Interrupt Codex Turn

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent hints, but the description adds valuable context by clarifying that the interrupt does not stop or restart Bridge/app-server processes. This reduces risk of misuse, even though it doesn't specify async behavior or effects on already-completed turns.

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, front-loaded with the action, and every part adds value. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter tool with annotated destructiveness, the description sufficiently covers purpose and boundaries. No output schema means return-value details are not expected. Minor gap: no mention of whether interrupt is asynchronous or what happens if the turn is not active.

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 100% with clear descriptions for thread_id and turn_id. The description merely repeats 'active thread and turn' without adding meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb phrase ('Directly request turn/interrupt') and names the exact resource ('specified active Codex thread and turn'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by stating it does not stop or restart processes, matching the interrupt-only scope.

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?

Provides clear context: it is for sending an interrupt request to an active thread/turn. The exclusion of process-level control is stated, which implicitly differentiates from broader lifecycle tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or situations where a different tool would be preferred.

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