Change the name of an existing GoHighLevel workflow folder by providing its folder ID and the new name.
Rename an existing workflow folder.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | New name for the folder | |
| folderId | Yes | The folder ID to rename (from list_folders) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It indicates a mutation, but doesn't detail permissions, side effects, or return behavior. The description implies the operation targets an existing folder but lacks depth for a mutation tool.
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, direct sentence that conveys the core action without any extraneous information.
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 and no output schema, the description is minimal. For a simple rename operation, it covers the basic action, but lacks comprehensive behavioral details that would be expected without structured support.
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%, and the schema fully describes both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline would be 3, but the high coverage suggests the schema handles it completely, warranting a 4 for relying on schema without need for compensation.
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 (rename) and resource (workflow folder), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like create_folder, delete_folder, and move_workflow.
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?
Implies usage on an existing folder, but doesn't state when to use this vs alternatives or any prerequisites beyond the obvious requirement of an existing folder ID.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.