debuggerSaveSettings

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. 'Saves debugger settings' implies a mutation operation, but it fails to describe critical traits such as whether this requires specific permissions, if the settings are persisted globally or per-session, what happens on success or error, or any rate limits. The description is too vague to inform the agent about the tool's behavior beyond the basic action, leaving significant gaps in understanding.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence 'Saves debugger settings.' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse. However, this brevity comes at the cost of completeness, but in terms of structure and efficiency, it scores highly as every word directly relates to the tool's purpose without redundancy.

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 of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and what to expect upon execution. While the schema covers the single parameter, the overall context for invoking this tool—such as when it's applicable, what it affects, and how it interacts with other debugger tools—is insufficient, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an agent.

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 the single parameter 'settings' documented as 'The debugger settings.' The description does not add any meaningful semantics beyond this, such as format examples, constraints, or usage context. Since the schema already provides adequate parameter documentation, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description neither compensates for nor enhances the schema's information.

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 'Saves debugger settings' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'debuggerSaveSettings' without adding meaningful clarification. It specifies the verb 'saves' and resource 'debugger settings', but lacks distinction from sibling tools like 'debuggerSetBreakpoints' or 'debuggerSetVariableValue', which also involve setting debugger configurations. This minimal phrasing fails to provide specific context about what 'settings' entails or how this operation differs from others.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, context for saving settings (e.g., during debugging sessions), or exclusions. Given the presence of sibling tools like 'debuggerSetBreakpoints' and 'debuggerSetVariableValue', which might overlap in functionality, the absence of usage guidelines leaves the agent without direction on selecting the appropriate tool for managing debugger configurations.

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