debuggerSaveSettings

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. 'Saves' implies a write operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, whether settings persist across sessions, what format the settings should be in, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 maximally concise at just three words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. While it's under-specified in terms of content, it's perfectly efficient in terms of structure and length.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling debugger tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'saving' entails (persistent storage? session-only?), what format the settings should be in, whether there are side effects, or what distinguishes it from other debugger tools. The description leaves too many contextual questions unanswered for effective tool selection.

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 doesn't add any meaningful information beyond what the schema already provides about parameters. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no additional param information in the description.

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'. It specifies the verb ('saves') and resource ('debugger settings'), but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'debuggerSetBreakpoints' or 'debuggerSetVariableValue' that also modify debugger state. The purpose is clear at a basic level but lacks specificity about what distinguishes this tool from other debugger-related tools.

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. There are multiple debugger-related sibling tools (debuggerSetBreakpoints, debuggerSetVariableValue, debuggerDeleteBreakpoints, etc.), but the description doesn't indicate whether this tool is for persistent configuration, session-specific settings, or any other context. No prerequisites, timing considerations, or exclusions are mentioned.

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