set_breakpoints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavior burden. It discloses that breakpoints are set as active and that sourceRoot's XML metadata resolves RDBG IDs, but it does not explain side effects like whether existing breakpoints are replaced, whether a debugger connection is required, or what happens on failure.

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 tight sentences: the first states the action and scope, the second adds the key mechanism. Every word earns its place; no padding or repetition.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining prerequisites, return behavior, and failure modes, but it covers none of those. For a debugger mutation tool with three parameters, the description is too sparse for an an agent to call it confidently.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies the role of sourceRoot. It does not explain what sourcePath should be or that `lines` are the target breakpoint line numbers, leaving two of three parameters underdocumented.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('active breakpoints for one local BSL module'), making the tool's core action unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling debugger tools, none of which set breakpoints.

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 phrase 'one local BSL module' implies a scope, and the later RDBG-resoultion sentence gives context, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The intended usage is inferable from the tool name and sibling context, not fully stated.

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