Update Wiki grid column

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

Goes well past the annotations: it discloses immutable fields (type and slug), true patch behavior versus full replacement, that revision is accepted but not enforced while every call still advances the grid's revision, what is returned, and the important caveat that Yandex only exposes this in the live OpenAPI and may change it. That is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Four short sentences, all front-loaded: patch semantics first, then idempotency, then revision behavior and return value, then the API-stability caveat. No filler, and the most decision-relevant fact leads.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries return-value disclosure ('returns the grid's new revision and the column as saved') and covers mutation scope, idempotency, revision handling and API volatility — everything an agent needs to invoke this nested-body update correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds genuine meaning by clarifying revision semantics (accepted but not enforced, still bumps the grid revision) and by noting that unspecified fields — including type and slug — are untouched, which shapes how the body should be populated.

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 and resource ('Edit a grid column in place') and immediately narrows the operation by noting that type and slug stay fixed, which distinguishes it from sibling write tools like wiki_grids_columns_add, wiki_grids_columns_remove and wiki_grids_columns_move without needing 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?

Clear context for when this tool applies: patch semantics ('only the fields sent change'), safe repetition ('repeating the same call leaves the same column'), and that a stale/missing revision is acceptable. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives (move/remove) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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