Removes a breakpoint from the current RAD debugging session using the breakpoint ID returned when it was created. Use it to clear breakpoints you no longer need.
Remove a breakpoint ID returned by this session. Does not accept arbitrary config IDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | ||
| breakpoint_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is partly covered. The description adds the meaningful constraint that only session-scoped IDs are valid, but says nothing about behavior when the ID is unknown, stale, or belongs to another session, nor whether removal is idempotent.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the key constraint. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the tool is structurally simple. Still, for a mutation with 0% schema coverage the description should mention the failure mode for invalid IDs or point to rad_list_breakpoints for discovering valid IDs — both absent.
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 0% with two required string parameters, so the description carries real weight. 'Breakpoint ID returned by this session' does constrain breakpoint_id's provenance, partially tying it to session_id's scope, but session_id itself is never explained and no format or validation detail is given.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Remove a breakpoint ID'), which cleanly separates it from rad_set_breakpoint and rad_list_breakpoints. The qualifier 'returned by this session' adds scope but is slightly ambiguous about which operation returns it (presumably rad_set_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 exclusion 'Does not accept arbitrary config IDs' is a useful when-not-use signal, implying the ID must originate from this session's own tooling. However, it never names the producing sibling (rad_set_breakpoint) or states prerequisites, leaving the positive usage path implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.