umouse_voice_cancel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it does add real value: it states that result delivery stops immediately, that cleanup is asynchronous ('not passing off cancel-wait as device-already-muted'), and that already-entered characters are not rolled back. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious semantic an agent would otherwise get wrong. Missing: permissions/auth needs, idempotency, and what the caller should do to observe cleanup completion.

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?

One sentence with zero filler, and the primary effect (immediately stop delivery, start cleanup) is front-loaded ahead of the caveats. The rhetorical quoted phrasing ('取消等待' versus '设备已关麦') is slightly dense but earns its place by preventing a specific misuse.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential semantics for a 1-parameter mutation, including the negative guarantees an agent needs. It stops short of saying what the call returns or whether the caller must poll umouse_voice_status/umouse_get_events to confirm that device cleanup has finished.

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?

There is only one parameter (session_id), and the schema already describes it at 100% coverage as '目标会话 ID', so the baseline is 3. The description says the session is 'specified' but adds no format, validity, or lifecycle meaning beyond the UUID format already in the schema.

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 names a specific verb (取消/cancel) applied to a specific resource (指定语音会话/specified voice session), and clarifies the semantics: result delivery is blocked immediately while device cleanup begins. It implicitly separates itself from umouse_voice_wait and umouse_voice_finish by insisting that cancelling a wait is not the same as the device being muted, though it never names those siblings outright.

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 usage context is only implied – an agent can infer that this is the tool to call when it wants to abandon a session rather than complete it, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over umouse_voice_finish, umouse_voice_wait, or umouse_ack_voice. There are no prerequisites or exclusions stated.

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