autotask_raw_request

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

With no annotations, the description discloses critical behaviors: automatic header injection, base URL resolution, query parameter encoding. It lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or response format, but covers essential mechanics for a raw request tool.

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 concise (about 100 words) and front-loaded with purpose and usage guidance. It efficiently packs technical details, though could be more structured with bullet points.

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 is a generic escape hatch, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, when to use, automatic configuration, and parameter handling. It lacks output specification, but for a raw request tool this is acceptable.

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% with descriptions, but the description adds significant context: headers are auto-added, path resolved against base URL, queryParams must be flat and are URL-encoded, body is optional. This greatly aids parameter understanding.

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 explicitly states it's an 'escape hatch for Autotask REST endpoints not yet wrapped by a typed tool,' clearly defining its purpose as making raw REST requests. It distinguishes itself from the many typed sibling tools by calling itself an escape hatch.

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 advises 'Use sparingly — typed tools are preferred for safety,' providing clear guidance on when to use it as a fallback. It implies not to use when a typed tool exists, but doesn't list explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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