debug_breakpoint_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only states that the breakpoint is "software". It omits whether the session must be suspended, whether breakpoints persist or are deduplicated, permission/auth requirements, and what the call returns.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, so the core purpose is immediately visible. Its brevity is efficient rather than padded, though it is arguably too terse for the tool's complexity.

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 state-mutating debugger tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is too thin. Crucial facts for correct invocation, such as session preconditions, addressing-mode exclusivity, and address format, are absent.

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% and the schema exposes only bare titles, so the description must compensate. It names va, module, and rva and their relationship (alternate addressing modes), which is real value, but it omits format (hex string vs int), the exclusivity rule, and session_id entirely.

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+resource ("Add a software breakpoint") and the two addressing modes, which distinguishes it from the sibling debug_breakpoint_remove. However it doesn't explicitly name or contrast with that sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase "by absolute VA or module + RVA" implies the two accepted usage modes, but there is no explicit context such as whether the target session must be paused, attached, or suspended, and no stated alternatives. Usage is only implied.

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