modify_property_groupsRename user-defined property groups or change their descriptions in Archicad, with built-in groups protected and a single undo step.
Renames user-defined property groups and/or changes their description (built-in groups are read-only). One undo step.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| groups | Yes | ||
| undoName | No | Name of the undo step shown in Archicad |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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 two pieces of genuinely new context: built-in groups are read-only (a hard precondition) and the change costs one undo step, which is not derivable from annotations.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and the read-only caveat immediately after. No filler.
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 mutation tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the key precondition and undo semantics. It is slightly thin on batch behavior (arrays of up to 500 groups, partial-failure handling), but nothing essential is missing for a correct call.
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 50%. The description mentions the rename and description fields, which maps to the two item-level properties, but says nothing about how a group is identified (current name or GUID), the undoName parameter, or the batch array (maxItems 500). It only partially compensates for the coverage gap.
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 (renames) plus resource (user-defined property groups) and the exact field being changed (description). It also distinguishes itself from sibling property tools by noting built-in groups are read-only, so an agent can tell it apart from create_property_groups/delete_property_groups.
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?
Usage is implied by 'renames ... and/or changes their description', but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to the sibling modify_property_definitions for the definition-level equivalent. Adequate but leaves selection partly to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.