portkey-admin-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'cancel' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, whether the cancellation is reversible, what happens to partial export data, or what confirmation/response to expect. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool and gets straight to the point with clear subject-verb-object structure.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'cancel' entails operationally, what happens to the export job, whether there are side effects, or what the tool returns. The agent must guess about the behavioral implications and expected outcomes of invoking this 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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'export_id' well-documented in the schema as 'The unique ID of the log export to cancel'. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what the schema provides, but with complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Cancel') and target resource ('a running log export job'), providing specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_log_export' (which doesn't exist in the list) or 'update_log_export' - though 'cancel' implies stopping an in-progress operation rather than deleting or modifying.

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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that the export must be running), nor does it reference related tools like 'start_log_export', 'get_log_export', or 'list_log_exports' from the sibling list. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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