clear_breakpoints

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two genuinely useful behavioral traits: idempotency ('Clearing zero breakpoints is success') and immediate effect regardless of run state ('Takes effect immediately while the program is running or paused'). It omits error conditions, required session state, and return shape.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the two behavioral notes. No filler or 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, idempotency, and timing adequately. It stops short of stating error cases or whether the session must be active, which would complete the picture.

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 50%: the 'file' parameter is already documented in the schema, while the required 'sessionId' has no schema description. The description only vaguely covers session scope ('in a session') and adds little beyond the schema, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (remove all breakpoints) plus the scope options (entire session vs one file). The word 'all' implicitly distinguishes it from the singular remove_breakpoint sibling, but it never names that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 scope phrasing ('all breakpoints in a session, or all breakpoints in one file') implies when this bulk-clear is appropriate versus the singular remove_breakpoint, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative. Usage is left to inference.

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