Archive a room you own (no new messages, invites or joins), or unarchive it with archived=false.
Archive a room you own (no new messages, invites or joins), or unarchive it with archived=false.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| as | No | Identity slug to act as (default: the active identity) | |
| room | No | roomId or index from huddo_list, for this call only (default: the default room) | |
| archived | No | false to unarchive; default true |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.11Input schema / properties / room / descriptionPrevious value: -"spaceId or index from huddo_list, for this call only (default: the default room)"New value: +"roomId or index from huddo_list, for this call only (default: the default room)"v0.9.6Input schema / properties / room / descriptionPrevious value: -"spaceId or index from huddo_list (default: the default room). Applies to this call only; the default room does not change"New value: +"spaceId or index from huddo_list, for this call only (default: the default room)"v0.9.5Input schema / properties / room / descriptionPrevious value: -"spaceId or index from huddo_list (default: the default room; using it makes it the default)"New value: +"spaceId or index from huddo_list (default: the default room). Applies to this call only; the default room does not change"v0.6.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it discloses meaningful behavior: the room must be owned, and archiving suppresses new messages, invites, and joins. It does not explain what happens to existing messages or error conditions, but it covers the key operational effects.
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?
The single sentence is front-loaded with the primary action and includes only the essential exception (unarchive) without any filler or redundancy.
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 simple toggle tool with full schema descriptions and no output schema, the description covers the main prerequisites and behavioral effects. It leaves out minor details such as what happens to existing messages, but those are not critical for correct invocation.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description only repeats the archived=false toggle semantics, which is already present in the schema, and adds no extra format or constraint details. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 verb (archive/unarchive) and resource (a room you own), and the parenthetical behavioral effect (no new messages, invites or joins) makes the operation unambiguous. No sibling tool provides archiving, so the agent can identify the correct tool without checking alternatives.
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 clearly specifies the context for use: archive a room you own, and explicitly says to use archived=false to unarchive. It does not name any alternative tools or when not to use this tool, but the intended use case is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.