Remove a breakpoint from an active mobile debug session using its debug session ID and breakpoint ID; repeated removal succeeds.
Remove an owned breakpoint; repeated removal succeeds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeoutMs | No | ||
| breakpointId | Yes | ||
| responseMode | No | debug | |
| debugSessionId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.35.0Input schema / properties / responseModeAdded value: +{
+ "default": "debug",
+ "enum": [
+ "compact",
+ "debug"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.34.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral trait: idempotency via "repeated removal succeeds". However, it says nothing about permissions/auth, what happens if the breakpoint is not owned by this session, error behavior for unknown IDs, or the effect of timeoutMs and responseMode.
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 clause, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no filler. Its brevity is efficient rather than padded, though it is arguably under-specified for a four-parameter mutation tool.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, four parameters at 0% documented coverage, and an enum whose effect is unexplained, the description is far too thin. An agent would know what it does but not how to call it safely or what a failure looks like.
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% across four parameters, and the description only obliquely implies that a breakpoint identifier is needed. It adds no meaning for debugSessionId, timeoutMs, or the compact/debug responseMode enum, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Remove ... breakpoint") plus a scope qualifier ("owned"), which lets an agent distinguish it from set_debugger_breakpoint in the sibling list without opening either schema. It stops short of naming the counterpart tool explicitly, so it isn't quite a 5.
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?
"Owned" implies a precondition (only breakpoints this session created) and "repeated removal succeeds" implies idempotency, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. An agent must infer that this is the cleanup counterpart to set_debugger_breakpoint after a step/resume cycle.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.