remove_function_breakpoint

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint: true and openWorldHint: false, which cover safety and repeatability. The description adds the 'exact match' detail but does not discuss behavior when breakpoint does not exist. It aligns with annotations, no contradiction.

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 extremely concise: one sentence plus a minimal Args note. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It could mention the effect of calling on a non-existent breakpoint, but the idempotent annotation covers that. Output schema absence is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 meaning beyond the schema by noting that function_name must match exactly what was passed to add_function_breakpoint. With 0% schema coverage, this helps the agent understand the parameter's role and format requirement.

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 it removes a function breakpoint by name, distinguishing it from siblings like remove_breakpoint (which likely handles other breakpoint types). The phrase 'exact match used at add time' adds precision.

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 use for removing function breakpoints, but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool (e.g., for non-function breakpoints use remove_breakpoint). It provides context but lacks clear alternatives.

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