umouse_meeting_resume

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the global-exclusivity lock, the interception behavior and the meetingBusy payload (owner), and that the outcome arrives asynchronously via meetingCreated/meetingDestroyed rather than as a return value. It does not address permissions, whether the resume is reversible, or how long to wait for the events, leaving some behavioral gaps for a write-like state-changing operation.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the exclusivity/error rule, then the async result channel. Dense but every clause carries information; the only cost is that the heavy compression in Chinese makes it slightly harder to parse for a non-native reader.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates well by explaining that results are delivered through meetingCreated/meetingDestroyed events, filling the hole an absent output schema would otherwise leave. The main remaining gap is what the caller should do after a meetingBusy interception.

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 device_id parameter is documented in detail in the schema (SN, optional when one device is online, required when multiple, temporary identity caveat). The description adds nothing about the parameter, 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 and resource ('恢复被暂停的会议' – resume a suspended meeting) and implicitly scopes it to meetings already paused, which separates it from meeting_create/meeting_pause/meeting_destroy. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred from the shared meeting_* naming rather than stated.

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 description gives a clear precondition (the meeting must already be paused) and an explicit failure condition (a meeting in progress on another device causes the call to be intercepted with meetingBusy and an owner). It stops short of saying what the agent should do next on interception (retry, query status, target another device), so the guidance is strong but not fully prescriptive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.