rename_category_groupChange a YNAB category group's name by providing the group ID and a new name up to 50 characters.
Rename a category group.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | New group name, at most 50 characters (required) | |
| category_group_id | Yes | Group to rename (required) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Unique category group identifier | |
| name | Yes | Category group name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional context—no mention of the destructive effect on transactions or budgets referencing the group, no length/validation notes beyond the schema, and no return behavior.
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 concise and front-loaded with the action, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently minimal. There is no wasted wording, but there is also almost no content.
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 destructive, idempotent mutation tool, the description should disclose consequences (e.g., effect on existing category references) and any constraints. With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, but the behavioral side is essentially absent.
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%, with both parameters documented including the 50-character limit and UUID format, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but it doesn't need to.
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 'Rename a category group.' only restates the tool name and title, making it a tautology under the rubric. It does identify the verb (rename) and resource (category group), but gives no scope or distinction from related siblings like rename_payee or update_category.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_category_group or update_category, and no preconditions are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.