remove_breakpoint

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It conveys that removal is a destructive action, but omits behavioral details like prerequisites (breakpoint must exist), side effects, or error cases.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it lacks detail and reads as under-specified. It is not verbose, but the brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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?

Given the presence of sibling tools like list_breakpoints and set_breakpoint_on_text, the description should link to them (e.g., get breakpointId from list_breakpoints). It fails to provide this contextual hook, making it harder for an agent to use 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 parameter name 'breakpoint_id' is self-explanatory, and 'CDP breakpointId' adds slight context. However, schema coverage is 0% and the description does not elaborate on format, source, or validation, leaving the agent with minimal helpful detail.

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 clearly states the action (remove) and the resource (breakpoint), and specifies the identifier type (CDP breakpointId). It is straightforward but does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_breakpoints or set_breakpoint_on_text, though the name alone distinguishes it.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as indicating that the breakpoint ID must first be obtained via list_breakpoints. The description merely states the function without usage context.

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