portkey-admin-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool performs a mutation ('publish'), implying it changes system state, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permission requirements, whether the action is reversible, error conditions, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and outcome. There is no wasted verbiage, and it directly communicates the tool's function without redundancy. This is an example of optimal conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has 2 parameters with full schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It clarifies the purpose but lacks behavioral details and usage context. For a mutation tool, this leaves gaps in understanding permissions, effects, and error handling, making it incomplete for safe agent use.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('prompt_partial_id' and 'version') with descriptions. The description adds minimal value by implying the version becomes default, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('publish') and resource ('a specific version of a prompt partial'), making the purpose understandable. It specifies the outcome ('making it the default version'), which adds clarity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential siblings like 'publish_prompt' or 'list_partial_versions', though the resource specificity helps.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing prompt partial with versions), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'update_prompt_partial' or 'list_partial_versions'. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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