debuggerDeleteBreakpoints

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to add any context. It doesn't specify if this is a destructive operation (implied by 'Deletes'), what permissions are required, whether it affects debugging state, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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?

While concise with just two words, this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description lacks front-loaded critical information and fails to earn its place by adding value beyond the tool name.

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 tool with 6 parameters (including nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't address the tool's complexity, provide context for parameter usage, or explain what to expect after deletion, leaving significant gaps for an AI 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters (e.g., 'breakpoint', 'debuggingMode'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter relationships or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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' without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what resource is being acted upon (e.g., which debugger, what type of breakpoints) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'debuggerSetBreakpoints' or 'debuggerDeleteListener'.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active debugger session), exclusions, or related tools like 'debuggerSetBreakpoints' for creation or 'debuggerDeleteListener' for other debugger components.

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