ruyi_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without addressing side effects, return values, behavior if the breakpoint does not exist, or irreversibility. This is a significant gap for a removal operation.

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, concise sentence with no fluff, and it is front-loaded with the action. It is appropriately brief, though it lacks a structured format that could include usage context. Still, the conciseness is effective.

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 removal tool, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the role of pageIdx, what the return value or success indication is, or whether the breakpoint must exist beforehand. Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient for full understanding.

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 description does not add any parameter information. The schema provides a description for breakpointId (noting it comes from ruyi_list_breakpoints), but pageIdx remains undocumented in both the schema and description. With 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 '移除指定软断点' clearly states the action 'remove' and the resource 'specified soft breakpoint'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ruyi_set_breakpoint_on_text and ruyi_list_breakpoints by the unique verb-resource combination.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool or how it relates to alternatives. It does not mention that breakpointId should come from ruyi_list_breakpoints or that removal should complement breakpoint-setting tools. No usage context or exclusions are given.

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