docflow_update_review_rule_groupRename a review rule group by providing workspace ID, group ID, and new name to keep compliance review rules organized.
Rename a review rule group (POST /review/rule_group/update).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| group_id | Yes | ||
| workspace_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states the rename action and endpoint, without disclosing whether the name is overwritten, whether existing settings are preserved, required permissions, or side effects.
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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The endpoint reference adds useful precision without bloat.
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 state-changing tool with three required parameters and no annotations, the description is too thin. It omits parameter semantics and behavioral caveats, and relies on the output schema to cover return-value expectations.
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 0%, and the description does not explain workspace_id, group_id, or name. The verb 'rename' hints that name is the new value, but the IDs and their role/scoping are left entirely to inference from parameter names.
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 states a specific verb ('Rename') and resource ('review rule group'), making it clearly distinct from sibling tools that update or delete review rules/groups. The endpoint reference reinforces the exact operation.
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 usage is implied: use this when the goal is to rename a review rule group. However, it does not explicitly contrast with docflow_update_review_rule or docflow_delete_review_rule_group, so an agent gets no explicit when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.