Set debug breakpoints

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that breakpoints are replaced wholesale, that an empty array clears all breakpoints, or any side effects or required session state. The 'escape hatch' label signals low-level behavior but does not explain specifics.

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, densely informative sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key verb and resource, making it highly scannable.

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 low-level DAP tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits crucial operational context such as whether a debug session must already exist, how breakpoints are applied (replace vs. append), and what results the caller can expect.

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 low (33%); only 'lines' has an explicit schema description. The tool description does not clarify the meaning of 'deployment_id' or 'source', though 'deployment debug runtime' gives some context. It adds minimal 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 a specific verb ('set') and resource ('source breakpoints for a deployment debug runtime'), making the tool's primary function immediately clear. It also differentiates from sibling debug tools by focusing specifically on breakpoint manipulation, not inspection or stepping.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like debug_capture_at or debug_evaluate. The phrase 'low-level DAP escape hatch' hints at advanced use, but it does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or what higher-level tools might be preferred.

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