gdb_delete_breakpoint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The term 'Delete' effectively signals destructive behavior (permanent removal), but the description omits error handling (e.g., behavior if breakpoint number doesn't exist), return values, or 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. The action verb leads the sentence, making it immediately scannable and appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter operation.

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 (single required parameter), full schema coverage, and lack of output schema, the description is adequate. It could be enhanced by noting the permanent nature of deletion versus disabling, but it sufficiently covers the essential information needed for invocation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage ('Breakpoint number'), so the schema fully documents the parameter. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, merely reinforcing that deletion occurs 'by number' rather than by address or function name.

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 provides a clear verb ('Delete'), resource ('breakpoint'), and identifier method ('by number'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'gdb_disable_breakpoint' (which keeps the breakpoint inactive rather than removing it), preventing a top score.

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 implies usage through the action verb ('Delete'), suggesting when to remove breakpoints entirely. However, it lacks explicit guidance on choosing deletion over 'gdb_disable_breakpoint' or prerequisites like the breakpoint needing to exist.

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