keil_set_breakpoint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuinely non-obvious trait — that request, confirmation, and hit are distinct events, so a successful call does not mean the breakpoint is armed. However, it omits hardware breakpoint scarcity limits, whether the target must be halted, and how failure is surfaced.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the capability and followed by the one caveat that matters. No filler and nothing that merely restates the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the async request/confirmation note covers part of the behavioral gap. For a debugger-mutating tool with zero annotations and zero schema documentation, though, the description should also say that at least one of the two addressing modes is required and that a debug session must be active.

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 0% and all three parameters are nullable with no descriptions, so the description must compensate. It usefully establishes two mutually exclusive addressing modes (file/line as a pair, or a 32-bit address) and hints that file refers to a unique source file, but it never states that arguments are optional, that file must be paired with line, or what format the address string takes.

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 and resource ("Set a hardware breakpoint") and enumerates the two addressing modes it accepts ("unique source file/line or 32-bit address"). It is readily distinguishable from keil_remove_breakpoint and keil_list_breakpoints by implication, but it never names a sibling or the debug state in which it applies.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (active debug session, halted target), and no reference to the alternative breakpoint tools in the sibling list. At best an agent can infer usage from the tool name itself.

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