autotask_raw_request

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses automatic header injection, path resolution, and query parameter encoding. However, it omits details about response format, error handling, and potential destructiveness of certain methods, though the method enum covers DELETE.

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 5 sentences, each earning its place. It front-loads the purpose and usage guidance. Minor improvement: could be more structured, but it's concise and clear.

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?

Critical missing information: the response output is not described. Since there is no output schema, the agent cannot infer what the tool returns (raw JSON, error codes, etc.). This is a significant gap for a raw request tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how path is resolved, that queryParams are URL-encoded, and that body is optional. This enriches understanding beyond the raw 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 identifies the tool as an 'escape hatch' for untyped Autotask endpoints, distinguishing it from the many sibling tools that wrap specific resources. It uses precise verbs ('raw request') and specifies the resource (Autotask REST API).

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 states when to use ('endpoints not yet wrapped') and when not to ('use sparingly, typed tools preferred for safety'), providing clear guidance on alternatives without ambiguity.

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