remove_breakpoint

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states side effects (modifies debugger state, breakpoint deleted), prerequisites, and return value (confirmation of removal). It does not detail error cases beyond the schema's note on failure, but for this tool that is sufficient.

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 concise but comprehensive, front-loading the action and then covering side effects, prerequisites, return, usage, and alternatives in a logical order. No fluff, every sentence adds value. Slightly verbose for a simple tool, but well-structured.

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 the tool's simplicity, the absence of an output schema, and the full coverage of parameters by the schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, when to use it, side effects, prerequisites, and return. It does not mention potential errors beyond the schema's note, but that's not critical for this operation.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters, including breakpoint_id ('Unique identifier of the breakpoint', constraints, interactions). The description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning beyond reinforcing that breakpoint_id comes from set_breakpoint, which is already in the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the specific verb 'Removes' and the resource 'breakpoint' by its ID. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming set_breakpoint and resume as alternatives, making it unambiguous which tool to pick.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this to clean up breakpoints or disable debugging at specific locations') and names concrete alternatives with their purposes. The prerequisites to call it are also stated (active, paused session with breakpoint ID from set_breakpoint).

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