debuggerSaveSettings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'saves,' implying a write operation, but does not mention side effects, persistence, return values, or any requirements. Critical details for a mutation tool are missing.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded and directly states the action. There is no redundant or extraneous information.

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 there is no output schema or annotations, the description is inadequate for a mutation tool. It fails to explain what happens to existing settings, whether any response is returned, or what the settings string should contain. The lack of behavioral and contextual details makes it incomplete for practical use.

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?

The schema contains 100% description coverage for the single parameter, which is documented as 'The debugger settings.' The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The schema already provides the parameter's purpose.

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 saves debugger settings, using a specific verb and resource. It is not a tautology and conveys the core function. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like setPrettyPrinterSetting or debuggerSetVariableValue, though the focus on 'debugger settings' provides some distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does without providing context on prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools. This leaves the agent without direction on placement in a workflow.

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