debuggerDeleteBreakpoints

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, and the description adds meaningful context by explaining the real-world consequence of not cleaning up breakpoints. It also links this tool to the lifecycle of debuggerSetBreakpoints, which is useful behavioral information.

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 with no filler. The core action is stated first, then the source of ids, then a practical motivational note. Everything earns its place.

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 destructive cleanup operation with no output schema, the description explains what it does and why it matters. It does not specify return values or exact breakpoint object shape, but given the simple deletion action and the cross-reference to the setter, this is adequate.

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%, so the generic parameter descriptions already exist. The main added value is clarifying that breakpoint ids come from debuggerSetBreakpoints, which helps understand the 'breakpoint' parameter, but no additional detail is given for the other parameters.

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 and resource ('Remove breakpoints') and clearly states where the ids come from ('debuggerSetBreakpoints'). This distinguishes it from related sibling tools like debuggerSetBreakpoints and debuggerDeleteListener.

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 gives clear practical context: cleanup is worthwhile even after a failed session to avoid forgotten breakpoints interfering later. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use cases or alternatives, but the use case is precise enough.

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