wafeq_request

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

The description explains why the tool is destructive, noting the same call can 'read a report or delete an invoice.' It adds critical runtime behavior beyond annotations: automatic X-Wafeq-Idempotency-Key injection on writes unless overridden, and Authorization always being set from server credentials and non-overridable. This is valuable disclosure for a high-risk arbitrary API tool.

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 front-loaded with the destructive warning and escape-hatch positioning, followed by concrete usage rules and header behavior. Every sentence carries operational weight; the slight redundancy between the header line and first sentence is acceptable as a scannable summary.

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 an arbitrary-endpoint tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential context an agent needs: when to use it, safety categorization and rationale, user-confirmation requirement, idempotency behavior, and authentication constraints. It is appropriately complete for a deliberately open-ended escape hatch.

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 schema already documents method, path, query, body, and headers. The description adds meaning by clarifying the idempotency-key auto-injection behavior and that Authorization cannot be overridden through the headers parameter, which goes beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Call any Wafeq endpoint directly, with full control over method, path, query, body AND headers.' It also explicitly differentiates itself from the documented sibling tools by presenting itself as the fallback escape hatch for endpoints not covered by the bundled spec.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use only for 'something the bundled spec does not cover,' while documented endpoints have their own generated tools. It also prescribes a safety rule: 'Confirm with the user before any non-GET call.' This clearly routes the agent away from primary tools and into this fallback only when appropriate.

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