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 effectively communicates critical behavioral traits: the action is irreversible ('cannot be undone') and has broad impact ('remove the prompt and all its versions'), which are essential for a destructive operation. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or response format.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a critical warning. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the irreversible nature and scope of deletion, which is crucial. However, it lacks details on permissions, error cases, or what happens to dependent resources, leaving some behavioral gaps that could affect agent decision-making.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'prompt_id' well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or constraints), so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 specific action ('Delete a prompt by its ID') and resource ('prompt'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'delete_prompt_label' or 'delete_prompt_partial'. It goes beyond a tautology by specifying the target resource and method of identification.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_prompt_label' or 'delete_prompt_partial', nor does it mention prerequisites such as permissions or dependencies. It only describes what the tool does, not when it should be selected.

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