Add Wiki Grid Rows

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

The description adds the caveat 'This changes structured data,' which informs the agent that this is a mutating operation—useful context given the annotations do not include readOnlyHint. However, beyond this, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error handling, conflict behavior, or the effect of optimistic locking failures. The schema already covers the revision mechanism, so the description contributes little extra transparency.

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?

The description is two sentences, with the main purpose in the first sentence and a critical prerequisite plus a caution in the second. Every sentence adds value, there is no redundancy, and the structure is front-loaded with the verb and resource. This is a model of conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, an output schema, and annotations, the description provides the essential context: what the tool does, the necessity of fetching the grid first, and a warning that it changes data. The schema covers parameter detail, so the description does not need to enumerate every field. It is complete enough for a competent agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it could mention error/rejection conditions.

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?

The input schema provides 100% description coverage for all parameters, including details about rows, grid_id, position, revision, and after_row_id. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema—it merely restates the requirement to fetch the latest revision. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 description clearly states the tool's function: 'Add rows to a Yandex Wiki dynamic table.' This uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('rows', 'Yandex Wiki dynamic table'), and it is clearly distinct from sibling tools like grid_delete_rows or grid_update_cells. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 description provides a clear prerequisite: 'Fetch the grid first and pass the latest revision.' This tells the agent the necessary pre-step and the locking requirement. However, it does not mention when to avoid this tool or how it compares to alternatives beyond the inherent nature of adding rows, so it misses explicit exclusion or alternative guidance.

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