debugger_remove_breakpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly communicates the destructive side effect of removing a single breakpoint, but it does not mention behavior when the breakpointId is invalid, whether removal is reversible, or what state changes occur in the debugger session.

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, no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the sibling alternative is given in the second sentence without repeating schema details or adding unnecessary context.

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 one-parameter mutation tool, the description is nearly complete: it states the operation, the identifier source is in the schema, and the sibling alternative is named. The main gap is the lack of any information about return values or error cases, though neither is essential for this straightforward removal action.

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 only parameter, breakpoint_id, is already documented as 'breakpointId from debugger_set_breakpoint.' The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond restating the breakpointId concept, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Remove'), a specific resource ('one breakpoint'), and the key identifier ('breakpointId'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool debugger_remove_all_breakpoints, which is a clear point of confusion an agent would otherwise face.

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 explicitly routes the agent to the alternative: 'Use debugger_remove_all_breakpoints to clear them in one call.' This directly tells the agent when to choose this tool versus the sibling, with no inference required.

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