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 and effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it is a destructive operation ('Delete') with irreversible consequences ('cannot be undone'). This covers critical safety information, though it could add more context like permissions or error handling.

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 front-loaded with the core action and parameter, followed by a crucial warning, using only two sentences with zero wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by conveying essential information efficiently.

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 reasonably complete: it clarifies the irreversible nature and parameter usage. However, it could improve by mentioning expected outcomes (e.g., confirmation message) or error cases, 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 parameter 'slug' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by specifying 'by slug,' but does not provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 action ('Delete') and resource ('a virtual key by slug'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_virtual_key' (read) and 'update_virtual_key' (modify) by focusing on permanent removal.

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 'This action cannot be undone,' suggesting it should be used cautiously for permanent deletion. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'update_virtual_key' for modifications or prerequisites for deletion.

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