wafeq_upload_file_raw

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by spelling out the concrete consequence of non-idempotency ('calling twice creates two records') and how to make retries safe via `idempotency_key`. It also reveals the Content-Disposition header requirement. This is useful behavioral context, though slightly undermined by the confusing raw-body vs base64 phrasing.

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 most important information, but it contains noticeable redundancy: 'Create file (advance)' appears twice, and the raw-body mechanism is explained twice. It is compact overall, but not every sentence 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?

The description covers purpose, usage routing, payload construction, required headers, and retry behavior, which is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. No output schema exists, but the return value is not essential for correct invocation. The slight ambiguity between 'raw binary content' and 'file_base64' keeps it from a perfect score.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds a useful selection heuristic ('Provide `file_base64` + `filename`, or `file_path`'), but it largely restates what the schema already communicates.

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 action ('Create file in advance mode'), the resource ('Files'), and the technical mode ('sending raw binary file content directly in the request body'). It also explicitly differentiates from the sibling `wafeq_upload_file` by saying raw mode is the distinguishing factor.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to prefer `upload_file` unless raw mode is specifically needed, which is clear routing guidance relative to the sibling. It also states the payload requirement (`file_base64` + `filename`, or `file_path`) and the Content-Disposition header requirement.

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