debuggerDeleteListener

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

Annotations already signal a destructive operation (destructiveHint=true), and the description adds concrete behavioral context: it frees the session and warns that a stale listener can block future sessions for the same user. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps the agent understand side effects.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the timing/consequence are stated in the second sentence. Every sentence 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 simple cleanup operation with four parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough context: what the tool does and when it is needed. Missing return-value or error behavior is minor for this kind of action, and the annotations already cover the destructive profile.

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 schema already documents all four parameters at a basic level. The description adds no per-parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies here.

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 action ('Stop listening for breakpoints and free the session') and clearly ties it to the tool's resource and lifecycle role. It also distinguishes this tool from sibling debugger tools like debuggerListen and debuggerDeleteBreakpoints by focusing on session cleanup rather than breakpoint manipulation.

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 says when to use the tool ('when a debug session is over or abandoned') and gives the consequence of not using it ('a listener left behind blocks the next one for the same user'). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to decide correctly.

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