remove_breakpoint

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

Discloses side effects ('modifies debugger state (breakpoint deleted)'), prerequisites, and return value. Without annotations, the description provides sufficient behavioral context, though it could mention idempotency or failure modes.

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 structured with clear sections: action, side effects, prerequisites, returns, usage, alternatives. Each sentence adds value; slight verbosity could be trimmed but remains effective.

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 one parameter, full schema coverage, no output schema (but mentions return type), and sibling tools, the description covers the essential context for correct invocation. No gaps.

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%, and the description adds meaning: breakpoint_id must be non-empty, from set_breakpoint response, and correspond to an active breakpoint. This exceeds what the schema alone provides.

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 ('Removes a previously set debugger breakpoint by its ID') and resource ('breakpoint'), with a specific verb that distinguishes it from siblings like set_breakpoint and resume.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('clean up breakpoints or disable debugging'), prerequisites ('active, paused debugger session with breakpoint ID from set_breakpoint'), and alternatives ('set_breakpoint' to add, 'resume' to continue).

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