End the pairing with your operator in Huddo, showing a system notice in the original room; optionally act as a specified identity.
End the pairing with your operator. The room where you paired shows a system notice; your operator can also unpair you in Huddo (click their avatar, Unpair).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| as | No | Identity slug to act as (default: the active identity) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the paired room shows a system notice and that the operator can also unpair externally, which is useful context. However, it omits permissions, reversibility, and whether the pairing can be re-established.
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?
Two tight sentences that front-load the action and then provide relevant operational context. Every clause earns its place without 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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a single optional param, the description covers the core effect and an alternative operator path. It remains slightly incomplete on post-conditions and reversibility, but is mostly sufficient.
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 single optional 'as' parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or syntax for this parameter, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
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 ('End') and resource ('pairing with your operator'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like huddo_leave, huddo_kick, and huddo_pair_check. The intent is unambiguous from the first sentence.
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 purpose is clear, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the action description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.