breakpoint_set_data

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the tool sets a watchpoint on variable changes/reads, mentions prerequisite data, and notes adapter support limitations. It does not detail side effects or failure modes, but the core behavior is transparent.

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, front-loaded with purpose and trigger, followed by prerequisite and limitation. Every sentence adds essential information 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?

For a simple setter tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior, prerequisites, and constraints. It does not detail return values or errors, but that is acceptable for this type of tool given the context of sibling debug tools.

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% but the description adds value by linking variablesReference and name to the variables_get operation and explaining accessType options. This provides context beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 tool sets a data/watch breakpoint on variable changes/reads. It specifies the action (set), the resource (data breakpoint), and the trigger condition (variable changes/reads), distinguishing it from sibling breakpoint tools like breakpoint_set_function.

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 provides explicit prerequisites: requires variablesReference and name from variables_get. It also notes the limitation 'May not be supported by all adapters,' guiding when the tool can be used and when alternatives might be needed.

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