remove_breakpoint

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

The description discloses that removal does not resume a paused page, requires confirmation, and that breakpointId may need to be re-obtained after a debugger rebuild. This adds context beyond annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint, readOnlyHint) without 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?

Two sentences that are front-loaded with the primary action and then provide usage specifics. No redundant or extraneous information.

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 has 4 parameters, 1 required, and an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: removal modes, parameter usage, confirmation requirement, post-removal behavior, and edge case handling (breakpointId rebuild). 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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds meaning to each parameter: explains url as an exact substring pattern, breakpointId caveat about session rebuild, confirm's authorization role, and action enum values. This enhances understanding beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 specifies the verb 'removes' and the resource 'breakpoint' with three distinct removal modes (code, XHR, all). It references sibling tools (set_breakpoint_on_text, break_on_xhr, list_breakpoints, pause_or_resume) to differentiate when each mode is applicable.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use each action: use breakpointId from set_breakpoint_on_text/list_breakpoints for remove_code, use exact URL pattern from break_on_xhr/list_breakpoints for remove_xhr. Also clarifies that removal does not resume a paused page and suggests calling pause_or_resume separately.

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