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 clearly indicates this is a destructive operation ('cannot be undone'), which is crucial information for a deletion tool. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., what happens to the user's data, permissions, or associated resources) or any authentication requirements.

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 perfectly concise - two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides critical behavioral warning. There's zero wasted language and the most important information ('cannot be undone') is appropriately positioned.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the minimum essential warning about irreversibility. However, it lacks information about what the tool returns, what happens to the user's associated resources, or any prerequisites/permissions needed. Given the high-stakes nature of user deletion, more context would be beneficial.

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 'user_id' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage. No parameter semantics are explained in the description text itself.

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 ('Remove a user') and resource ('from your Portkey organization'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'delete_user_invite' or 'delete_workspace'. It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 this should be used for permanent user removal ('cannot be undone'), but doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'delete_user_invite' or 'update_user' to deactivate. It provides some context about the irreversible nature but lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools.

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