Starts meeting mode on a target device, keeps audio continuously streaming, and prevents other devices from starting a concurrent meeting.
开启会议模式（设备进入会议态，音频持续流入）。会议全局独占：另一台设备会议中时本指令被拦截（返回 meetingBusy 事件的 owner）。结果异步经 meetingCreated/meetingDestroyed 事件上报。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device_id | No | 目标设备 SN。单台在线可省略；多台在线必须显式指定（缺省时命令会被 SDK 拒绝）。识别超时的临时身份（usb-xxxx / ble-<mac>）仅本次连接会话内稳定，不要持久化。 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the state change (device enters meeting state), the ongoing resource use (audio continuously streaming), the global-exclusivity interception behavior with the meetingBusy owner, and async result reporting via meetingCreated/meetingDestroyed events. That is rich, non-obvious behavioral context beyond the schema.
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?
Three compact clauses, each earning its place: the action, the exclusivity/interception rule, and the async event reporting. Front-loaded with the action and 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?
There is no output schema, and the description compensates by explaining that results arrive asynchronously via meetingCreated/meetingDestroyed events and that failures surface as meetingBusy. An agent has everything it needs to call it and interpret the outcome.
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?
The single device_id parameter has 100% schema description coverage, including the single-vs-multiple-online rule and the transient-identity caveat. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already does the work.
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+resource: '开启会议模式' with the resulting device state (meeting state, continuous audio streaming). An agent can tell it apart from umouse_meeting_destroy/pause/resume by the sibling names alone, though the description doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.
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?
Gives a concrete usage condition: the meeting is globally exclusive, so the command is intercepted when another device is in a meeting (returning meetingBusy with the owner). This tells the agent when this call will fail and why, but it doesn't explicitly say to use pause/resume instead for temporary interruptions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.