Rename a room you own (at most 80 characters).
Rename a room you own (at most 80 characters).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| as | No | Identity slug to act as (default: the active identity) | |
| name | Yes | The new room name | |
| room | No | roomId or index from huddo_list, for this call only (default: the default room) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two real behavioral traits: an ownership permission requirement and an 80-character validation limit. It omits what happens on a non-owned room and whether the change is visible to other members, which keeps it short of a 5.
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 sentence with the action front-loaded and the constraint parenthesized. Every element earns its place; nothing is padded or repeated from the schema.
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 low-complexity, three-parameter mutation with full schema documentation and no output schema, the description covers the key prerequisite (ownership) and the input limit. It could be slightly fuller on failure behavior when the caller does not own the room.
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 name, room, and as are already documented. The description adds only the 80-character constraint on name; it says nothing about the room or as parameters beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ("Rename a room") that is clearly distinct from siblings such as huddo_update_name (identity name) and huddo_edit (message edit). It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the object of the verb is unambiguous.
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 phrase "a room you own" implies a usage boundary — you can only rename rooms you control — but it never states alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions. There is no reference to huddo_update_name or huddo_update_avatar, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.