Occupy a BMAHS device exclusively for a limited lease. The gateway enforces a default 120-second lease, capped at 3600 seconds, and auto-handles the token until expiry or manual release.
独占占用一台 BMAHS 设备（返回的 token 由网关保存并自动携带）。租约由网关强制为有限时长：不带 ttl 默认 120 秒（2 分钟），请求值超过上限（默认 3600 秒）会被截断，不支持无限期占用。租约到期设备自动收回占用权；任务结束也可调用 bmahs_release 提前释放。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ttl | No | 租约秒数（默认 120=2 分钟；超过上限会被截断） | |
| device | Yes | 设备 id 或显示名 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers: token persistence, gateway-managed lease enforcement, default TTL, upper-limit truncation, prohibition of indefinite leases, automatic reclamation on expiry, and manual release via bmahs_release. This is strong behavioral transparency.
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, each earning its place. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by lease constraints and the release alternative. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema is present.
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?
The description is nearly complete for a lease-acquisition tool: it covers default behavior, limits, automatic expiry, token handling, and release. It does not specify what happens if the device is already occupied or whether occupancy is blocked or queued, a small but relevant gap for an exclusive-occupancy tool. No output schema exists, but the token handling is disclosed.
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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it clarifies that omitting ttl defaults to 120 seconds, that values beyond the default server cap of 3600 seconds are truncated, and that infinite leases are unsupported. This goes beyond the schema's field-level text.
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 opens with a precise action and resource: '独占占用一台 BMAHS 设备' (exclusively occupy one BMAHS device). It clearly identifies the tool's core purpose and distinguishes it from the release sibling by explicitly naming bmahs_release as the early-release counterpart.
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 clear operational context: leases are finite, default to 120 seconds, get truncated at the upper limit, and auto-expire. It also routes the agent to bmahs_release when the task ends. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus bmahs_call or bmahs_screenshot, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.