remove_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. It states the action (remove a breakpoint) but does not describe side effects, such as whether removal is immediate or requires a resumed session, nor does it mention permissions or error states. The description is sufficient for a simple tool but lacks depth.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and clear. However, it could be slightly improved by including a brief note about the optional pageId parameter without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool has three parameters, and the description covers the main action and references the source of breakpointId. However, it does not mention the optional pageId parameter, which the schema describes. Without an output schema, the description should provide more context about the return value, though the tool's simplicity mitigates this gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that the breakpointId comes from set_breakpoint, but the schema already states this. The description does not provide additional semantic value beyond what is already in the schema.

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 verb 'remove' and the resource 'breakpoint', and it distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying that the breakpoint was previously set with set_breakpoint. This makes the purpose unambiguous and distinct from related tools like set_breakpoint and list_breakpoints.

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 when to use the tool (to remove a breakpoint), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like list_breakpoints to find breakpoint IDs. There is no guidance on prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the parameter schema.

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