removeBreakpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool removes a breakpoint (mutating action) and requires the ID from setBreakpoint. It does not describe effects like whether the breakpoint is removed from the session permanently, any side effects, or errors if the ID is invalid. But given the tool's simplicity, the description adds some context beyond the schema.

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 one concise sentence that clearly states the action and the parameter's origin. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no fluff. Every word adds value.

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 tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is sufficient. It explains the action and references the prerequisite tool (setBreakpoint). It could mention error cases or that the ID must be valid, but for a simple removal operation, this is adequately complete.

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 100%: the schema already describes breakpointId as 'The breakpoint ID returned by setBreakpoint'. The description repeats this, adding no new semantic information. The tool description also mentions the ID source, but it's redundant. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema fully covers the parameter.

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 tool's action: removing a previously set CDP breakpoint by its ID. It identifies the resource (breakpoint) and the specific action (remove), and references setBreakpoint as the source of the ID. It is distinct from siblings like setBreakpoint and resume, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 implies when to use: after setting a breakpoint, and it mentions the ID comes from setBreakpoint, which provides context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives (e.g., clearing all breakpoints). It lacks exclusions or alternative tool references beyond the implicit link to setBreakpoint.

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