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. While it mentions the conditional create/update logic and CI/CD use case, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like: what happens on conflicts, whether this is an idempotent operation, what permissions are required, or what the response structure looks like. For a complex mutation tool with 14 parameters, 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 extremely efficient - just two sentences that each serve a distinct purpose. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides context and lookup details. There's zero wasted language, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 complex mutation tool with 14 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens when a prompt is found vs not found, what fields get updated, whether the operation is atomic, what the return value contains, or any error conditions. The CI/CD context is helpful but insufficient for 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 14 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 or update a prompt') and specifies the conditional logic ('based on whether it exists'), which distinguishes it from simple create or update operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_prompt' or 'update_prompt' beyond mentioning the conditional behavior.

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 clear context about when to use this tool ('Useful for CI/CD and prompt-as-code workflows') and explains the lookup mechanism ('Finds existing prompts by name within the collection'). This gives practical guidance, though it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools.

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