Suggest Wiki grid column slug

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, yet the description adds genuinely non-redundant context: it clarifies that the operation uses POST but changes nothing (preempting a false destructive inference), and warns that Yandex does not document it and it may change. That undocumented/unstable caveat is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently sized. The 'read-only' parenthetical and the 'POST but changes nothing' sentence overlap slightly, but the latter adds distinct method-level clarity, so the minor redundancy is defensible.

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 two-parameter, nested-body read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the read-only/non-mutating nature, and the undocumented-and-may-change caveat. It even signals what the call returns (free alternatives), leaving no significant gap for correct invocation.

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% – both 'slug' (column slug to check) and 'title' (title to turn into a slug and check) are documented in the schema. The description restates the availability-check concept but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: checking whether a column slug is free in a grid and returning free alternatives. This is clearly distinct from sibling mutation tools like wiki_grids_columns_add, wiki_grids_columns_update, and wiki_grids_columns_remove, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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 purpose (slug-availability check) strongly implies usage as a pre-flight step before adding a column, and 'read-only' frames it as non-mutating. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no named alternative, and no condition that selects this tool over the columns_add/columns_update siblings. Guidance is implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.