Release breakpoint

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

Annotations declare the write/non-idempotent/non-destructive profile, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the released request resumes to the upstream or back to the client depending on which side was paused, and optional overrides mutate the request before release. It stops short of noting that a released breakpoint cannot be re-released or what happens on an invalid id.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and outcome, with the optional-edit note second. No filler and nothing redundant.

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?

With no output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description needs only to convey behavior, which it does. Minor gaps remain around failure modes and the fact that release is a one-shot operation, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents id plus the four override fields. The description adds only that overrides mutate the request 'before release', which is mild added meaning; the baseline of 3 applies 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?

States a specific verb (release) and resource (paused breakpoint) and explains the outcome: the request continues upstream or returns to the client depending on which side was paused. This is precise enough to distinguish it from list_paused_breakpoints and other traffic-control siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the domain (you release a paused breakpoint obtained from list_paused_breakpoints, referenced in the schema) and the description hints at the optional edit path. However, it never states when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as the breakpoint having to still be paused.

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