remove_breakpoint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the destruction scope ('removes all breakpoints at that location') and the lifecycle window in which the removal is honored. It omits failure behavior, e.g. what happens when no matching breakpoint exists or the id is stale.

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?

Two dense sentences with zero filler; the primary addressing mechanism and the immediate-effect semantics are front-loaded before the secondary lifecycle note.

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 definition covers targeting and effect timing well enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is the absence of error/confirmation behavior when no breakpoint matches.

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 80%, so the schema already documents each addressing field, including the function-name rewrite details and breakpointId precedence. The description restates the three modes but adds no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a breakpoint) and enumerates three distinct addressing modes with their resolution sources, so an agent knows exactly what the call does. It references siblings set_breakpoint and list_breakpoints as id sources but never distinguishes itself from clear_breakpoints, which is the closest alternative for bulk removal.

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?

Gives clear operational context: the removal takes effect immediately while running or paused, and also works after the program exits but before a relaunch. It does not say when to prefer this over clear_breakpoints or how to choose among the three targeting modes when more than one applies.

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