Debugger: Remove Breakpoints

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

Even with idempotentHint/readOnlyHint annotations, the description adds real behavioral detail: removal is by file:line, queued breakpoints without device ids are also cleared, and the tool returns { removed }. This goes beyond what annotations or schema convey.

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 concise sentences front-load the purpose, then define the input format, and finally explain an important edge case. No filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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?

Covers input shape, source-of-truth for locations, queued-breakpoint behavior, and return shape. With the schema documenting the optional device parameter, nothing essential is missing for correct 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 already documents all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that locations must match debugger_list_breakpoints output and that matching is by file:line, aiding correct invocation.

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?

States the specific action 'Remove breakpoints by location' and identifies the exact input format. It also references debugger_list_breakpoints, distinguishing this tool from its set/list siblings.

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?

Clearly describes how to supply locations (array matching debugger_list_breakpoints) and why removal is keyed by file:line, giving practical usage context. It does not explicitly say 'use this instead of debugger_set_breakpoints,' but the purpose is unambiguous.

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