setDebugBreakpoints

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

The description discloses the replacement behavior ('replaces existing'), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it omits details about error handling, interaction with active debug sessions, or side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden, and while it reveals one important behavior, others are missing.

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, efficiently structured sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the primary purpose and follows with supported features.

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?

The description covers the replacement behavior and supported features, but does not mention the return value, error states, or if breakpoints are immediately active. Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description is adequate but leaves some contextual gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds marginal value. It mentions 'conditions, logpoints, hit counts' which map to the optional fields in the breakpoints array, but does not provide additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already includes.

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 clearly states the verb 'set' and the resource 'breakpoints in a file'. It distinguishes from sibling debugging tools by specifying the action of setting breakpoints and noting that it replaces existing ones.

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 implies usage for setting breakpoints programmatically, but no explicit guidance is given on when to use this vs alternatives like UI breakpoints. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, though the context of sibling tools suggests it is the primary breakpoint-setting tool.

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