autotask_raw_request

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

Discloses automatic header injection, URL resolution against zone-based base URL, and queryParam URL-encoding. While it hints at safety, it could explicitly state that the tool can perform any HTTP method including destructive actions. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden; it is largely transparent.

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?

Four sentences front-loaded with purpose and guidance; no wasted words. Information is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

Complete for a raw request tool: covers purpose, usage, URL details, parameter handling. No output schema is expected for a generic endpoint. Sibling context implies this fills gaps in typed tool coverage.

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?

Adds meaning beyond schema by explaining path resolution, queryParam encoding, and automatic headers. Schema already covers parameters well (100% coverage).

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 it is an 'escape hatch' for uncovered REST endpoints, using specific verb 'Escape hatch' and resource 'Autotask REST endpoints'. It distinguishes itself from the many typed sibling tools explicitly.

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 advises 'Use sparingly — typed tools are preferred for safety', providing when-to-use (fallback) and when-not-to (when typed tool exists). Alternatives are the typed tools.

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