清除断点

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses critical behavioral details: the clearing happens via the BK command, data watchpoints cannot be cleared by address due to a Keil error, the tool automatically converts address/symbol to a Keil number with a fallback, unknown bp_id values trigger automatic fallback, and clearing triggers async messages. This is substantial transparency with no contradiction to annotations.

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 long but densely packed with necessary edge-case knowledge. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the structure separates usage, risk, and aliases. The empty call example '{}' is a small waste, and the risk section partly echoes annotation information, but overall each segment 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?

The description covers all critical context: required debug state, all parameter modes, the watchpoint-clearing bug, automatic fallbacks, asynchronous message behavior, and a risk rating. Given that an output schema exists, no return-value description is needed, and there are no obvious gaps that would prevent an agent from invoking the tool correctly.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it defines each parameter (expr for symbol/address, bp_id for internal service id, keil_number for Keil's actual breakpoint number), explains the fallback semantics, and documents parameter aliases while noting that unspecified names are rejected. This completely compensates for the bare 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 tool's verb and resource: '清除断点' (clear breakpoint), and goes further by explaining the three ways to specify which breakpoint to clear. It distinguishes itself from the sibling clear_all_breakpoints by framing this as a targeted clear operation and explicitly advising against using clear_all_* for a single 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 gives explicit usage guidance: three selection modes (expr, bp_id, keil_number), the prerequisite that debug must be entered, and a warning about async messages before issuing run/step. It also names the alternative clear_all_breakpoints and explains when not to use it (for a single breakpoint), making the choice between tools unambiguous.

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