Set a breakpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a breakpoint is set and how to specify the location. It does not mention whether an active debug session is required, whether the breakpoint takes effect immediately, whether a breakpoint ID is returned, or any side effects.

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?

One compact sentence with inline examples carries the essential information without fluff. The location formats are front-loaded, making the primary behavior immediately clear.

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 and no annotations, the description needs to cover behavioral context more thoroughly. It explains how to specify a location but omits expected return values, interaction with session state, and the meaning of optional parameters beyond the schema's brief descriptions. This leaves gaps for a 4-parameter tool.

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 significant value for the 'location' parameter by listing accepted formats (file:line, symbol, address), which the schema leaves undefined. Other parameters (condition, temporary) have schema descriptions, but 'sessionId' is undocumented in both the schema and description, so coverage remains incomplete.

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 action ('Sets a breakpoint') and explicitly enumerates the supported location formats with concrete examples (file:line, symbol, address). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like breakpoint_list and breakpoint_clear, which manage existing 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, session requirements, or follow-up actions. The only usage hints are the location syntax examples, which are parameter-level rather than tool-selection-level.

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