docs: drop description from view group example

[keydunov]

Summary

Removes description from the view group example on the View groups data-modeling page. description is not part of the documented view group parameter set, so showing it in the example was misleading. The example now uses only name and title, and the surrounding prose is updated to match.

Test plan

• mintlify dev --no-open boots without compile errors.
• Rendered docs/data-modeling/view-groups page shows only name and title in the example for both YAML and JavaScript code groups.

Made with Cursor

[mintlify]

Preview deployment for your docs. Learn more about Mintlify Previews.

Project	Status	Preview	Updated (UTC)
cubed3	🟢 Ready	View Preview	May 22, 2026, 5:03 PM

💡 Tip: Enable Workflows to automatically generate PRs for you.

[claude]

Claude finished @keydunov's task in 43s —— View job

---

Code Review

• Gather context and review changes
• Check documentation accuracy
• Post review feedback

Review: docs-mintlify/docs/data-modeling/view-groups.mdx

The change itself is clean and correct — the diff is minimal, the prose reads well, and both YAML and JavaScript examples are consistent after the edit. No issues with formatting or syntax.

However, there's one inaccuracy in the PR description worth noting:

description is not part of the documented view group parameter set, so showing it in the example was misleading.

This is not quite right. The description parameter is documented in the view group reference page (reference/data-modeling/view-group.mdx, lines 60–80), complete with YAML and JavaScript examples. It's a fully supported parameter.

That said, simplifying the introductory example to just name + title is a reasonable editorial choice — it keeps the first example minimal and focused. The fuller reference page already showcases description. So the change is fine; it's just the stated rationale that's slightly off.

One thing to consider: the reference page's larger example (reference/data-modeling/view-group.mdx, lines 185–303) still uses description in its view_group definitions, and the /v1/meta JSON response example (lines 309–326) also includes description fields. So there's no inconsistency introduced — readers will still encounter description when they visit the reference.

Verdict: LGTM. Clean, minimal docs cleanup. No functional or consistency issues.