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 warns that 'This action cannot be undone,' which is crucial for a destructive operation. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or response format, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that directly convey the action and a critical warning. Every word serves a purpose, and the information is front-loaded with no wasted text, making it highly efficient.

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 is minimal but covers the core action and irreversibility. However, it lacks details on permissions, error cases, or what happens upon success, leaving gaps in context given the tool's complexity.

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 'prompt_partial_id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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') and resource ('a prompt partial by ID'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'delete_prompt' or 'delete_prompt_label' by specifying the exact resource type. It provides a complete verb+resource combination without ambiguity.

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' or 'delete_prompt_label', nor does it mention prerequisites such as permissions or dependencies. The warning about irreversibility is behavioral, not usage guidance.

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