Control task delivery by pausing, resuming, or marking reviewed tasks as completed. Use 'active' to resume after pausing, and 'completed' to close callbacks without archiving.
暂停或恢复投递，或将审查通过的任务标记完成。暂停 DSH 时也会请求原客户端停止并取消排队中的提示；暂停桌面对话只会暂停桥接投递。明确设置 active 才会恢复原客户端停止后的投递。标记完成会关闭回传，不会归档。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| alias | Yes | ||
| state | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and uses it well: it discloses that pausing DSH stops the original client and cancels queued prompts, pausing desktop only pauses bridge delivery, active is required to resume, and completed closes the callback without archiving. This is valuable behavioral nuance beyond the schema.
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, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the core capability, and the next two add necessary edge-case details without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition.
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 only two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main behavioral outcomes and special cases (DSH vs desktop, active requirement, completion side effects). It does not explain what 'alias' refers to or describe error conditions, but for the tool's complexity it is largely complete.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. It explains the meaning and effect of the state enum values (active, paused, completed) in context, but it does not define 'alias' at all. The description partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions but leaves one parameter ambiguous.
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 explicitly states the tool's functions: '暂停或恢复投递，或将审查通过的任务标记完成' (pause/resume delivery, or mark a review-approved task as completed). This uses specific verbs and a clear resource, and the dual nature (control delivery vs. mark complete) is distinct from sibling read/send/list tools.
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 context on when to set active (to resume after the original client stops) and distinguishes between DSH and desktop conversation behavior, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool. Usage is implied rather than directly contrasted with siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.