debug_remove_breakpointRemove a breakpoint by its ID to clean up debug sessions. Specify the session ID when multiple sessions are active.
Remove a breakpoint by id returned from debug_set_breakpoint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Breakpoint id | |
| sessionId | No | Session id from debug_launch/debug_attach. Required when more than one session is live. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the id is returned from debug_set_breakpoint, which is useful context but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like what happens if the id doesn't exist or whether the operation is reversible beyond what annotations imply.
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?
A single sentence that conveys the action, the resource, and the key detail about the id source. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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 simple tool with two parameters and annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description provides the essential context (id origin). It doesn't address error handling or return values, but given the low complexity and the lack of an output schema, the definition is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented. The description adds meaningful context for the id parameter by specifying its source (from debug_set_breakpoint), which helps the agent understand how to obtain a valid value. No extra semantics for sessionId, but it's already well-described 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 action (Remove) and resource (breakpoint), and specifies the id comes from debug_set_breakpoint, distinguishing it from sibling tools like debug_list_breakpoints or debug_set_breakpoint. The purpose is unambiguous.
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 tool is for removing a breakpoint by its id, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention conditions like sessionId requirements or cases where removal might not be appropriate. The id source is a helpful hint, but no exclusion criteria are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.