edb_enable_breakpoint

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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) and adds context that the tool reactivates disabled breakpoints. It does not contradict annotations, and provides sufficient transparency for a simple operation.

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 concise with a clear single-purpose statement followed by parameter and return details. Each sentence adds value 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 1-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter, and return. It does not explain idempotency or side effects, but these are covered by annotations.

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 description re-iterates the parameter name and type but adds little beyond the schema's existing description ('Breakpoint ID number'). Schema coverage is low, but the description compensates minimally.

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 'Re-activate a disabled breakpoint' clearly states the verb and resource, and distinguishes this tool from siblings like edb_disable_breakpoint, edb_set_breakpoint, and edb_remove_breakpoint.

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 is disabled but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. Given the simple nature, it's adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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