wiki_grids_deleteDelete a Yandex Wiki grid by UUID. This action is irreversible, so verify the target with grids_get first.
Delete a grid — irreversible (grids have NO recovery token, unlike pages).
Verify the target with grids_get first. The API answers 204 No Content; the
result is a typed acknowledgement.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| grid_id | Yes | The grid's permanent UUID4 id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.67.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds crucial context beyond them: the operation is irreversible, grids have no recovery token (unlike pages), and the API returns 204 No Content with a typed acknowledgement. This tells the agent exactly what is destroyed and that no undo exists.
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-loads the critical irreversibility warning, then follows with prerequisite and return-value details in two tight paragraphs. Every sentence earns its place with 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 destructive single-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what happens (irreversible deletion), the safety prerequisite (verify with grids_get), and the response shape (204 No Content, typed acknowledgement). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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% and the single grid_id parameter is fully documented in the schema as a permanent UUID4 id. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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 (Delete) and resource (Wiki grid), and differentiates from siblings by contrasting behavior with pages ('grids have NO recovery token, unlike pages'), which distinguishes it from wiki_pages_delete. An agent can identify this tool without opening any 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?
Provides explicit pre-call guidance ('Verify the target with grids_get first'), naming a sibling tool and the condition that motivates it. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement or direct alternative naming, but the workflow guidance is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.