debugger_function_breakpoints

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the word 'Replace' is consistent with that. The description adds the adapter-support caveat, which is useful behavioral context, but it omits whether existing function breakpoints are overwritten, whether the session must be active, and what errors can occur.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. Its brevity is appropriate, though the wording could be more precise about what is being replaced.

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?

This is a destructive mutation tool with three parameters and no top-level parameter documentation, yet the description is only one sentence. It leaves out critical context such as session requirements, timeout behavior, and the exact effect of replacing function breakpoints, even though the output schema means return values need not be described.

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 0% for the top-level parameters, so the description carries the burden of explaining session_id, functions, and timeout. It only indirectly maps 'function breakpoint names' to the functions array and provides no meaning for session_id or timeout.

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 verb ('Replace') and a resource ('function breakpoint names'), but the phrasing is ambiguous: it is unclear whether the tool renames breakpoints or sets/replaces function breakpoints by name. It also does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool debugger_breakpoints.

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 only usage signal is the conditional phrase 'when the adapter supports them,' with no guidance on how to determine adapter support or which alternative to use when unsupported. It does not explain when to choose this tool over debugger_breakpoints or other breakpoint-related tools.

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