Add Wiki grid rows

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the default append-at-end placement and the fact that it returns the created rows plus the grid's new revision. It leaves concurrency/auth implications implicit, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and default behavior, then the slug prerequisite, then the return shape. No filler; every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 mutation tool with a nested body object and no output schema, the description covers purpose, placement defaults, slug sourcing, and return values, which is enough to invoke it correctly. It omits any note about revision handling/conflicts, which the optional revision parameter raises but does not fully resolve.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by telling the agent where the column slugs used as row keys originate (grids_get's structure block) and clarifying default placement semantics. That is real extra semantic value the schema does not supply.

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+scope: 'Insert rows into a grid at a position (default: append at the end)'. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like wiki_grids_rows_update, rows_delete, and rows_move 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 clear context: default behavior when no position is given, and the prerequisite that column slugs come from grids_get's structure block. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over wiki_grids_cells_update or other row-editing siblings, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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