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 for behavioral disclosure. While 'resend' implies a non-destructive action, it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the invitation has expired, whether there are rate limits, or what the expected outcome is. The description is minimal and lacks important operational context.

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 states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information with zero wasted content.

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 (resending emails) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after resending, potential error conditions, or how this interacts with other invitation management tools. The context signals indicate this is a straightforward tool, but the description leaves too many behavioral questions unanswered.

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 'invite_id' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional semantic information about the parameter beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate coverage through structured data alone.

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 ('resend') and target ('invitation email to a pending user'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'invite_user' or 'delete_user_invite', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'invite_user' for new invitations or 'delete_user_invite' for removing pending invitations. There's no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring an existing pending invitation, or context about when resending is appropriate.

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