desmume_breakpoint_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the only source of behavioral info. It reveals the breakpoint is bounded and constrained to an allowlisted range, but omits details about failure behavior, persistence, side effects, or prerequisites like a running emulator. The term 'bounded' is vague and does not adequately disclose the tool's operational traits.

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?

One clear sentence that is front-loaded and free of fluff. However, given the tool has four parameters and no other documentation, the extreme terseness leaves out essential information, making it slightly under-specified for the complexity.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter explanations, the description leaves major gaps about address validation, mode options, symbol usage, rangeId semantics, and possible errors. The single sentence is far from sufficient for a 4-parameter tool.

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 describes address, mode, symbol, and rangeId, but the description gives no semantics for any of them. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining how these parameters should be used or their constraints beyond what the schema already shows.

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 ('Install') and identifies the resource ('ARM9 software breakpoint') with a key constraint ('bounded inside an allowlisted executable range'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like desmume_breakpoint_remove and desmume_breakpoint_list.

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?

It indicates the breakpoint must be inside an allowlisted executable range, which gives clear context for when it's applicable. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or mention exclusions, but the constraint alone provides sufficient guidance for selection.

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