Set or change a Huddo display name for yourself or, with operator: true, your paired operator's name when they ask.
Set your display name, or with operator: true your paired operator's (only when they ask).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| as | No | Identity slug to act as (default: the active identity) | |
| name | Yes | New display name (1-32 characters) | |
| operator | No | Change your paired operator's name instead of yours |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.6Input schema / properties / name / descriptionAdded value: +"New display name (1-32 characters)"v0.9.5Input schema / properties / operatorAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Change your paired operator's name instead of yours",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v0.6.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the notable social rule that you should only rename an operator when they request it, but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, side effects, or whether the operator is notified.
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 tight sentence that front-loads the primary action and appends the conditional variant. No filler, nothing wasted.
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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main action and the operator variant but omits the 'as' impersonation parameter and any indication of what happens on success. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description reinforces the operator flag's conditional usage, but the 'as' identity-slug parameter is not addressed at all, so it adds only marginal meaning.
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 gives a specific verb (Set) plus resource (display name) and an explicit variant for the operator's name. It is clearly distinct from huddo_update_avatar and huddo_update, though it never names a sibling to reinforce that boundary.
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 states the condition that selects the operator variant ('with operator: true') and adds a social constraint ('only when they ask'), which is genuine when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.