Pass control of a live Android session between an AI agent and a human: set 'to' to 'user' for human portal control, or 'agent' to return control to the agent.
Pass the wheel mid-session: to='user' lets the human drive in the portal (e.g. after you've verified a feature); to='agent' gives control back to you.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | ||
| device | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the core behavioral trait — that control is transferred between agent and human — but says nothing about whether the call blocks, what happens to the session while the user drives, or how the agent should behave afterward.
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?
A single compact sentence with a parenthetical example; the core handoff concept is front-loaded and no sentence is wasted. Slightly dense due to the metaphor, but structurally sound.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description should say more about what happens after handoff — whether the call returns immediately, how the agent regains control, and what 'device' selects. The core behavior is covered but surrounding context is thin.
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 compensate. It explains both values of the required 'to' parameter meaningfully, but the optional 'device' parameter is entirely unaddressed, leaving half the parameters undocumented.
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 states a specific action ('pass the wheel mid-session') and clarifies the two directions of control transfer. It is distinguishable from sibling device-control tools, though the resource being handed off (session control) is conveyed through metaphor rather than named directly.
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?
It gives a concrete when-to-use example ('after you've verified a feature') and explains what each enum direction achieves. It stops short of naming when not to use it or pointing at alternative siblings, so it lands below full marks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.