wafeq_upload_file

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

Annotations already indicate a non-idempotent write, and the description enriches this with concrete consequences: 'calling twice creates two records' and the idempotency_key retry mechanism. It also discloses that the server builds the multipart/form-data body itself. This exceeds the annotation baseline without contradicting it.

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 compact and front-loaded with the write indicator, resource, and endpoint before moving into behavioral and parameter guidance. Minor redundancy exists between 'Create file' and 'Endpoint for creating a new file', but overall every section earns its place.

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 four-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the invocation essentials: required filename, either file_base64 or file_path, optional content_type, and non-idempotency behavior. It could mention the raw upload sibling or return value, but those are secondary for a correct call.

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 description adds useful meaning about choosing between file_base64 and file_path and content_type being optional. However, it mentions passing an idempotency_key that is not present in the input schema, and it doesn't restate the WAFEQ_ALLOW_LOCAL_FILE_UPLOAD restriction on file_path, which keeps this at adequate rather than strong.

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 operation: 'Endpoint for creating a new file' and 'Upload a file using multipart/form-data', with the resource and HTTP verb visible in the banner. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool wafeq_upload_file_raw, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives clear usage context: create a file, prefer file_base64 plus filename when content is already held, and use file_path for a file on the server machine. It doesn't mention wafeq_upload_file_raw or state when to choose this tool over that sibling alternative, which prevents a 5.

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