Create a new room inside a wing to organize persistent AI memory. Use it to structure stored context by wing and room for later retrieval.
Create a new room within a wing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| wing | Yes | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says 'create'. It does not disclose whether the wing must pre-exist, whether the room name must be unique, what happens on conflict, what permissions are needed, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool this is a substantial gap.
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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined editing.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is far too thin. An agent lacks the information needed to call it correctly in edge cases such as a missing wing or duplicate name.
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% and the description adds no meaning for any of the three parameters. It does not explain that 'wing' identifies the parent container, that 'name' is required, or that 'description' is optional free text, leaving all three 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?
States a specific verb (Create) and resource (room) and locates it within a wing, so an agent knows exactly what the call produces. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling engram_create_wing or clarify the wing/room hierarchy, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. whether the wing must already exist), and no mention of alternatives such as engram_create_wing or engram_list_rooms. The agent must infer the context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.