Many of the Reformation confessions (statements of belief) mention an Apocrypha, but most do not explicitly give a list of non-canonical books. Two do however, which I have quoted below. Most of those non-canonical books are in the Catholic canon, but three are not: the Prayer of Manasseh and 3rd and 4th Esdras (sometimes confusingly called 1st and 2nd Esdras). What marks these books out is that they were included in the Vulgate. So I think the debate over the Protestant canon was not so much about revising the Catholic canon, but evaluating the books that were well known in Europe.
I haven't found any modern statements of belief that explicitly list excluded books. Although Protestant academia is of course aware of the other canons and I'm sure you could find detailed arguments for why each book is excluded, in general there is little debate now over any of the OT apocrypha. Now the debate is over why the Pseudepigrapha were excluded.
I found one more interesting statement in the Helvetic Consensus, which I will quote last: it says that only the Hebrew of the OT is to be accepted, and that it should not be corrected (i.e. through textual criticism) by the Septuagint or Samaritan Pentateuch etc. This is a position which would be rejected by most Protestants today, and most Bible translations do frequently prefer the Septuagint over the Masoretic text. This is significant for this question because most of the books rejected by the Western church were not written in Hebrew. As the Eastern church emphasised Greek texts and preferred the Septuagint over the Hebrew, there would've been little issue with accepting additional books written in Greek. This is probably the ultimate reason why the Orthodox churches accept so many more books than the Western churches.
Dutch Reformed: The Belgic Confession (1566)
Article 6: The Difference Between Canonical and Apocryphal Books
We distinguish between these holy books
and the apocryphal ones,
which are the third and fourth books of Esdras;
the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Jesus Sirach, Baruch;
what was added to the Story of Esther;
the Song of the Three Children in the Furnace;
the Story of Susannah;
the Story of Bel and the Dragon;
the Prayer of Manasseh;
and the two books of Maccabees.
The church may certainly read these books
and learn from them
as far as they agree with the canonical books.
But they do not have such power and virtue
that one could confirm
from their testimony
any point of faith or of the Christian religion.
Much less can they detract
from the authority
of the other holy books.
Anglicanism: The 39 Articles (1571)
Article VI
Of the Sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for salvation
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the holy Scripture, we do understand those Canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.
Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
The First Book of Samuel
The Second Book of Samuel
The First Book of Kings
The Second Book of Kings
The First Book of Chronicles
The Second Book of Chronicles
The First Book of Esdras
The Second Book of Esdras
The Book of Esther
The Book of Job
The Psalms
The Proverbs
Ecclesiastes or Preacher
Cantica, or Songs of Solomon
Four Prophets the greater
Twelve Prophets the less
And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:
The Third Book of Esdras
The Fourth Book of Esdras
The Book of Tobias
The Book of Judith
The rest of the Book of Esther
The Book of Wisdom
Jesus the Son of Sirach
Baruch the Prophet
The Song of the Three Children
The Story of Susanna
Of Bel and the Dragon
The Prayer of Manasses
The First Book of Maccabees
The Second Book of Maccabees
All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.
Swiss Reformed: The Helvetic Consensus (1675)
Canon II:
But, in particular, The Hebrew original of
the OT which we have received and to this day do retain as
handed down by the Hebrew Church, “who had been given the
oracles of God” (Rom 3:2), is, not only in its consonants, but
in its vowels either the vowel points themselves, or at least
the power of the points not only in its matter, but in its
words, inspired by God. It thus forms, together with the
Original of the NT the sole and complete rule of our faith and
practice; and to its standard, as to a Lydian stone, all extant
versions, eastern or western, ought to be applied, and wherever
they differ, be conformed.
Canon III:
Therefore, we are not able to approve of
the opinion of those who believe that the text which the Hebrew
Original exhibits was determined by man’s will alone, and do not
hesitate at all to remodel a Hebrew reading which they consider
unsuitable, and amend it from the versions of the LXX and other
Greek versions, the Samaritan Pentateuch, by the Chaldaic
Targums, or even from other sources. They go even to the point
of following the corrections that their own rational powers
dictate from the various readings of the Hebrew Original itself
which, they maintain, has been corrupted in various ways; and
finally, they affirm that besides the Hebrew edition of the
present time, there are in the versions of the ancient
interpreters which differ from our Hebrew text, other Hebrew
Originals. Since these versions are also indicative of ancient
Hebrew Originals differing from each other, they thus bring the
foundation of our faith and its sacred authority into perilous
danger.
