edb_set_breakpoint

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and potential side effects (openWorldHint=true). The description adds context about conditional support but doesn't expand beyond what annotations already imply.

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 clear sections for arguments and returns. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no unnecessary 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 the single parameter and existence of an output schema, the description covers location types and condition format adequately. It could mention defaults or error handling but is largely complete.

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 adds meaningful examples for location (e.g., 'main', '*0x400528', 'foo.c:42') and condition expression format (e.g., 'x == 5'), enhancing the schema's terse 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 breakpoint at various locations (function, address, source) and supports conditions. It is specific, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like edb_set_hardware_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 mentions conditional breakpoints but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as edb_set_breakpoint_condition or edb_set_hardware_breakpoint.

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