autotask_raw_request

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

Without annotations, the description discloses automatic header addition, URL resolution, and query parameter encoding. It does not cover error handling or rate limits, but given its role as an escape hatch, the transparency is good.

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?

Two compact sentences that front-load the purpose and usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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's complexity as a raw API escape hatch, the description covers the essential instructions for invocation and automatic behaviors. It does not specify return format, but that is acceptable due to the variable nature of the endpoints.

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%, and the description adds value by clarifying that 'method' is HTTP method, 'path' is relative, 'body' is optional JSON, and 'queryParams' are flat and URL-encoded. This goes beyond the plain schema.

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 Autotask REST endpoints not yet wrapped by a typed tool,' explicitly distinguishing it from the many typed sibling tools. It lists HTTP methods, path usage, body, and query params.

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 says 'Use sparingly — typed tools are preferred for safety,' providing clear guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Also explains automatic header injection and how to construct queries.

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