portkey-admin-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that labels 'can be color-coded and scoped,' which adds some context, but fails to cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether creation is idempotent, error conditions, or what happens on success. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating functional details from optional features.

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 mutation (create operation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits like side effects, authentication needs, or response format, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by hinting at color-coding and scoping, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., explaining relationships between organisation_id and workspace_id). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Create a new prompt label') and purpose ('to categorize and organize prompts'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_prompt' or 'create_prompt_partial', which also create prompt-related entities but serve different functions.

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 implies usage context through mentioning 'scoped to workspaces or organizations,' suggesting when labels might be applied. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_prompt_label' or 'delete_prompt_label,' and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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