Ends a specified voice session manually instead of via the in-dialog finish button or VAD. Tears down the meeting and waits for device confirmation and final recognition so results are ready.
结束指定语音会话（对话内完成按钮/VAD 之外的手动入口；幂等：重复调用返回已有状态）。收尾顺序：会议销毁→等待设备确认与音频段完成→识别终态→结果可取。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | 目标会话 ID |
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 substantial work: it declares idempotency ('重复调用返回已有状态') and spells out the teardown ordering (meeting destroy → wait for device confirmation and audio-segment completion → terminal-state recognition → results retrievable). It stops short of stating blocking duration, failure modes, or what happens to an in-flight session's audio.
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?
Two dense sentences with the action and its manual-entry scoping front-loaded, followed by the idempotency and ordering guarantees. No filler, though the parenthetical stack is slightly compact for a reader unfamiliar with the meeting/voice lifecycle.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, yet the description covers idempotency, the teardown sequence, and that results become retrivable afterward — enough for an agent to call it correctly and know what to do next. It is complete for a single-parameter session-termination tool.
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?
Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents session_id as the target UUID. The description adds nothing about that parameter's semantics, which is acceptable at the baseline for full coverage but not above it.
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: '结束指定语音会话' (end the specified voice session), and immediately scopes it as the manual entry point outside the in-conversation complete button/VAD. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling umouse_voice_cancel, leaving that comparison implicit.
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 parenthetical '对话内完成按钮/VAD 之外的手动入口' implies when to reach for this tool (manual completion rather than automatic VAD/UI triggers), but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus umouse_voice_cancel or umouse_voice_abort-style siblings, and no prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.