Remove Wiki grid rows

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the rare DELETE-with-body convention, the body-carried revision, and the returned new revision. It does not cover auth/permission needs or revision-conflict failure behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its irreversibility, then the mechanics, then the return value. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding.

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 2-param nested-body tool with no output schema, the description covers consequences, input discovery, request shape, and return value. It leaves out permission requirements and how a stale revision is handled, which would round it out.

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%, so row_ids and revision are already documented, including the concurrency meaning of revision. The description confirms the body-vs-query mechanics but adds no format, constraint, or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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?

The first line gives a specific verb (Delete), resource (rows from a grid), scope (by id), and the critical consequence (irreversible). It is easily distinguishable from siblings like wiki_grids_delete (whole grid) and wiki_grids_columns_delete (columns) 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?

It tells the agent how to obtain the required input ("Find row ids with ``grids_get``"), which is a real prerequisite flow. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming update/move siblings as alternatives, so it is clear context but not full routing.

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