debug_set_breakpoints

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 clearly discloses the destructive/overwrite side effect: 'Replaces all existing breakpoints in that file.' This is the most important non-obvious behavior and is explicitly stated. It does not cover all potential behaviors such as error handling or session requirements, but the core side effect is transparent.

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 two tightly written sentences. The first delivers the core action, and the second adds the crucial replacement behavior without any filler. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

For a fairly simple 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage, this description covers the essential behavior. The lack of an output schema is acceptable here since the operation's success is not usually the focus. The main missing piece is an explicit pointer to when this should be used instead of clear/attach, but the description is otherwise sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the file, session_id, and breakpoints parameters well. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail, such as the format of session_id or the exact structure of the breakpoints array beyond what the schema already shows. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description adds no parameter semantics beyond 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 action ('Set breakpoints') and the resource ('a source file'). It also adds the key detail that all existing breakpoints in that file are replaced, which helps distinguish it from other operations. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling tool or contrast itself with debug_clear_breakpoints, so it misses a small opportunity for even clearer differentiation.

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 the usage context: calling this sets a fresh set of breakpoints because prior ones are replaced. Yet it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over debug_clear_breakpoints, debug_attach, or other debug commands. The replacement note indirectly implies when not to use it (e.g., if you want to preserve existing breakpoints), but this is not spelled out.

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