clear_breakpoint

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with these. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as what happens if the breakpoint does not exist, or whether the session must be active. Given the annotation coverage, this is a minimal but acceptable disclosure.

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, unambiguous sentence that directly states the action and target. There is no wasted wording, and the most important information appears first.

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 two-parameter tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. However, it lacks usage context (e.g., it is the inverse of set_breakpoint) and does not explain behavior for edge cases, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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% with both 'filepath' and 'line' fully described in the schema. The description merely restates these inputs without adding format, defaults, or edge-case information, so it adds no value beyond the schema.

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 the specific verb 'clear' and resource 'breakpoint', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like set_breakpoint and step_over. The scope (file and line number) matches the required parameters.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., breakpoint must exist), no exclusions, and no alternative tools mentioned. The description consists solely of the operation statement.

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