remove_breakpoint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool removes a breakpoint, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't mention permissions needed, whether the removal is permanent/reversible, error conditions, or what happens after removal. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information immediately.

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 this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, but with an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It states the core action but lacks important context about permissions, side effects, and relationship to sibling tools.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by its ID' which clarifies the purpose of the single parameter, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare 'breakpoint_id' field. However, it doesn't explain ID format, source, or constraints, leaving some ambiguity.

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 action ('Removes') and target ('a breakpoint by its ID'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_xhr_breakpoint' or explain what distinguishes this general breakpoint removal from specialized variants.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remove_xhr_breakpoint' or 'list_breakpoints' (which might be needed first to identify breakpoint IDs). The description only states what the tool does, not when it's appropriate.

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