Debugger: Set Breakpoints

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the pending/queued behavior when a breakpoint is added while the channel is running, the re-add replacement of existing conditions, and that each result returns a breakpointId or an error. This is meaningful operational detail the structured annotations do not provide.

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 front-loaded with the action, then provides the parameter shape, then highlights the critical runtime behavior in a clear IMPORTANT clause. Each sentence serves a purpose and there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description still explains what each result carries, covers the pending state, and describes re-add semantics. Combined with the schema's full parameter documentation, an agent has enough to call the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the description largely restates what the schema already documents: path prefixing, condition as a BrightScript expression, and hitCount behavior. It adds little genuinely new parameter meaning beyond a compact summary, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with the exact action and resource: 'Add breakpoints.' It also names the data shape and the device context, and the sibling tools include debugger_remove_breakpoints and debugger_list_breakpoints, so the tool is immediately distinguishable as the write/set operation for breakpoints.

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?

It gives critical usage context: the device must be HALTED for breakpoints to register, and breakpoints added while running are queued with pending:true. It does not explicitly name alternatives like debugger_remove_breakpoints or debugger_list_breakpoints, but the use case is clear enough that an agent can select this tool confidently.

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