remove_breakpoints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the action but does not reveal whether the removal is permanent, whether confirmation is needed, or if it affects other state like simulation or debugging sessions. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action. However, it is so brief that it may sacrifice completeness. Still, for a simple tool with no parameters, it is appropriately compact.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is extremely minimal. It fails to provide essential context for a mutation tool, such as whether breakpoints are session-specific, if the action is reversible, or what the return value is. This leaves an agent with insufficient information to use the tool safely.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and the description adds meaning by clearly stating the action on 'all breakpoints'. Since there are no parameters to document, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate, and the description does not need to add more.

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 'Remove all breakpoints' uses a specific verb (remove) and resource (breakpoints), clearly indicating the tool's function. It is distinct from the sibling 'add_breakpoint', making its purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state that it removes all breakpoints without selection, nor does it mention prerequisites or potential side effects. An agent would lack context for appropriate invocation.

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