Debugger: Remove Breakpoints

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint, readOnlyHint false, etc.), the description adds meaningful behavior: removal is by file:line and clears still-queued breakpoints without a device ID, and it returns '{ removed }'. This context is not present in structured data and helps the agent predict side effects and results.

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?

Three sentences, zero fluff. The core action is front-loaded, followed by parameter semantics and return value. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and annotations, the description covers the essential operational behavior and output. The return value is stated, the input format is clarified, and the queued-breakpoint nuance removes ambiguity. Nothing critical is missing.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the locations array must match debugger_list_breakpoints output and that removal by file:line also covers queued breakpoints, which is not obvious from the schema alone. This raises it to a 4.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Remove breakpoints by location.' It also clarifies that locations match what debugger_list_breakpoints reports, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like debugger_set_breakpoints and debugger_list_breakpoints. The purpose is immediately unambiguous.

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 gives clear context by specifying the locations format as matching debugger_list_breakpoints and notes the queued-breakpoint behavior, which guides the agent on when and how to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the reference to list_breakpoints implies the correct input source and the tool name makes its role obvious.

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