debuggerDeleteBreakpoints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Deletes breakpoints' implies a destructive mutation, but it fails to describe critical behaviors: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if it affects debugging sessions, error conditions (e.g., invalid breakpoint), or side effects. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to predict outcomes.

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 overly concise to the point of under-specification. While it uses only two words, it fails to convey necessary information about the tool's operation, context, or distinctions. Conciseness should not sacrifice clarity; here, the brevity results in a lack of useful content, making it inefficient for an agent's understanding.

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 the complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a destructive operation implied by 'deletes'), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, error handling, dependencies on other tools (e.g., needing a debugger session), or how it fits within the debugger workflow. For a mutation tool with multiple inputs, this minimal description is inadequate.

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 100% description coverage, with all parameters documented (e.g., 'breakpoint', 'debuggingMode', 'terminalId'). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation without needing description supplementation.

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 'Deletes breakpoints' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'debuggerDeleteBreakpoints'. It provides no additional specificity about what breakpoints are deleted (e.g., all breakpoints, specific ones by ID, in a certain context) or how this differs from sibling debugger tools like 'debuggerSetBreakpoints' or 'debuggerDeleteListener'. The purpose is technically stated but lacks differentiation and detail.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active debugger session), exclusions, or related tools like 'debuggerSetBreakpoints' for adding breakpoints or 'debuggerDeleteListener' for removing listeners. Without any context, an agent cannot determine appropriate usage scenarios.

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