rad_set_breakpoint

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world mutation. The description adds a meaningful caveat that setting a breakpoint does not guarantee symbol resolution, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it does not describe duplicate handling, failure behavior, session state requirements, or side effects, so it remains only adequate.

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 two short sentences with no wasted text. The core action is front-loaded, and the resolution caveat is a valuable second sentence that earns its place.

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 output schema covers return values and annotations cover the safety profile, but the description is incomplete for a six-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema description coverage. It leaves session_id and kind semantics unexplained and provides no usage guidance for selecting this tool over siblings.

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 carry the burden. It partially maps the three breakpoint modes to file+line, function, and address, but it omits session_id entirely and does not explain the required kind parameter, optionality, or valid field combinations. This is insufficient compensation for six parameters with no schema prose.

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 and resource: "Configure one breakpoint." It also enumerates the three targeting modes (file+line, function name, address string), which distinguishes it from breakpoint-listing and removal siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like rad_remove_breakpoint or rad_run_to_line, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternative tools. The note that configuration does not prove symbol resolution is a useful caveat, but it does not tell the agent when to choose this tool over siblings such as rad_run_to_line or rad_list_breakpoints.

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