remove_breakpoint

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds meaningful context: the ID becomes invalidated after removal and restoration produces a new ID. This informs the agent about side effects beyond the basic destructive flag, which is valuable behavioral 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every word adds value. It includes the key caveat (ID invalidation) and a hint about restoration without unnecessary elaboration.

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 destructive operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, side effects, and an alternative. It does not mention error handling or return values, but these are not critical for such a focused tool given the siblings and annotations.

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?

The schema provides only a required breakpointId string with no description (0% coverage). The description identifies it as 'a breakpoint by ID', linking the parameter to its role, but does not explain how to obtain the ID or its expected format. This is adequate but leaves some gap.

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 action ('Remove a breakpoint') and the resource ('by ID'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_breakpoint and list_breakpoints by focusing on removal and noting the restoration path.

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 provides practical guidance: it explicitly mentions using set_breakpoint to restore a removed breakpoint, which implies a clear alternative. It also notes the invalidation of the ID, helping the agent decide when this tool is appropriate. A brief mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing breakpoint ID) would make it fully explicit.

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