DebugSetSettings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses important behavior: settings are changed at the current stop, omitted fields are preserved, and settings are reapplied after later attach. It does not cover permissions, error behavior, or full return shape, and the [read-only] tag may be somewhat confusing for a state-changing debug operation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then adds the key partial-update and lifecycle constraints. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition.

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 7-parameter state-changing debug tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core behavior, partial updates, persistence across attaches, and batch-mode exclusion. It is not fully complete regarding prerequisite state, errors, or detailed response shape, but it is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful update semantics: any field left out retains its current value. It also indicates that the response reports the settings in force, though it does not add parameter-specific detail beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource: changing debugger settings at the current stop and returning the settings in force. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like DebugStep or DebugSetVariable, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

It provides clear context: the tool operates at the current debug stop, omitted fields keep their values, and it runs outside batch mode. It does not explicitly compare itself with other debug tools such as DebugBatchBegin or DebugSetBreakpoints.

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