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. While it indicates this is a mutation operation ('publish'), it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether this action is reversible, potential side effects on existing prompt calls, or error conditions. The description is insufficient 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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides valuable context about the production use case. There's zero wasted language or redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains the purpose and context well, but lacks information about behavioral aspects, error handling, and what happens after publishing. The completeness is minimal viable 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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'prompt' and 'version' but provides no additional context about format, constraints, or usage beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 ('publish a specific version of a prompt') and the outcome ('making it the default version that will be used when the prompt is called'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'promote_prompt' by specifying it sets the default version for production use.

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 for when to use this tool ('useful for promoting a tested version to production'), which helps differentiate it from tools like 'update_prompt' or 'create_prompt'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives like 'promote_prompt'.

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