set_breakpoint

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

The description explains the columnTolerance parameter's behavior (multi-hit auto-resume until column within tolerance). No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and adequately discloses this behavioral trait.

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?

Two sentences with no extraneous information. The first sentence states the purpose and required/optional parameters, and the second explains a key behavioral detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description provides sufficient context for a breakpoint tool: what it does, what parameters to use, and special behavior of columnTolerance. It could mention return value or error conditions but is otherwise complete.

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 documentation coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It describes all four parameters: sourceUrl, line, column, and columnTolerance, with an explanation of columnTolerance. However, it does not specify the format of sourceUrl or numbering convention for line/column.

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 tool sets a breakpoint using source URL, line, and optional column. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_breakpoints and remove_breakpoint.

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 for pausing execution at a specific line but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like set_breakpoint_on_text. No exclusion criteria or context is given.

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