Ends a device's meeting mode to release exclusive ownership, allowing other devices to start meetings. If another device owns the meeting, the command is blocked and returns the current owner.
结束会议模式（归属解除，其它设备方可开会）。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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the ownership-release side effect, the global exclusivity lock, the interception behavior returning the busy owner, and that results arrive asynchronously via meetingCreated/meetingDestroyed events. It omits what happens when no meeting is currently active (idempotency or error) and any permission/auth requirements.
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 dense sentences, purpose front-loaded, then exclusivity constraint, then result-reporting mechanism. No filler and every sentence contributes information an agent needs.
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 and no output schema, the description covers the key behaviors: side effect, failure mode, and async result channel. It stops short of stating behavior when no meeting is active or how the agent should correlate the asynchronous events to this call.
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% and the single optional device_id parameter already documents omission rules, multi-device requirements, and ephemeral ID caveats. The description adds nothing about device_id, so the baseline 3 applies.
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: ends meeting mode and releases ownership so other devices can start a meeting. This clearly distinguishes it from umouse_meeting_create/pause/resume, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.
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?
Explains the precondition under which the call succeeds and the condition under which it is rejected (another device holding the global meeting lock), which is meaningful routing guidance. It does not, however, tell the agent when to prefer destroy over pause or how to recover after a meetingBusy rejection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.