remove_breakpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool removes breakpoints, implying a destructive mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether removal is reversible, error handling, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the core action, and the second adds crucial scope information. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, with every sentence earning its place by enhancing clarity without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and scope well but misses behavioral details like effects, errors, or return values, leaving gaps for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('breakpoint_id' and 'session_id') fully. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying parameter interactions or usage examples, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Remove') and target resource ('breakpoint by its ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_breakpoints' or 'update_breakpoint'. It also specifies scope ('both active session breakpoints and pending breakpoints'), making the purpose unambiguous and differentiated.

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 description implies usage when a breakpoint needs removal, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remove_logpoint' or 'remove_watch', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but lacks comparative or conditional advice.

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