dolphin_breakpoints

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: 'Replace' implies the existing breakpoint set is overwritten rather than appended, which is destructive behavior an agent must know. However, it says nothing about authentication/attach requirements, error behavior, or the timeout, so disclosure is partial.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a result of under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

This is a mutating tool with nested object parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema. The description supplies only a DAP reference and never explains the required 'kind' dispatch, the replacement semantics per kind, or the timeout, leaving significant gaps for an agent to fill.

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 0% across four parameters, including two open nested objects with additionalProperties, so the schema alone is nearly uninformative. The phrase 'native DAP argument shapes' is a useful hint about the structure of 'source' and 'breakpoints', but 'timeoutMs' is undocumented and the nested object contents are left entirely to the caller's DAP knowledge.

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 names a specific verb ('Replace') and resource ('breakpoints'), and the three variants it lists (source, instruction, data) exactly mirror the required 'kind' enum. It is clear what the tool does, though it never contrasts itself with nearby siblings such as dolphin_watch or dolphin_execution.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any preconditions (e.g. must be connected/attached first, must be paused). The one-word 'Replace' hints at how it differs from a hypothetical add-breakpoint tool, but nothing is stated explicitly.

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