Trading bishop and knight for rook and pawn

It's good from scoring point but does it put me into a disadvantage since I lost a rook?

rook and pawn is often better in the endgame while bishop and knight is often better in the middle game. if you do raw counting then bishop and knight is worth one rook and 1.5 pawns so you sacrifice a little bit when you give knight and bishop for rook and pawn. That is why often the sacrifice on f7 (Bxf7+ Rxf7 Nxf7 Kxf7) is considered to be not good early in the game.

thanks for the reply!

You should also count tempi in the early game. If you have played Bc4xf7 and Nf3-e5xf7 that are 5 moves. If black has played ...o-o ...Rxf7 ...Kxf7 that is 3 moves, so white has lost 2 tempi, almost worth a pawn.

@ tpr indeed, thats the main issue with such an early attack.

creates imbalance, but every situation would take its own assessment to determine which is better

This is usually not a good idea. This idea with Bxf7+, Rxf7, Nxf7, Kxf7 is most common in opening play in Italian-type lines. However, the rooks don't really do much in the opening. So, trading off your active Bishop and Knight for a pawn that's usually stuck behind an enemy knight and the inactive rook seems illogical. It often gives your opponent a key opportunity to strike in the center with his active piece majority.