portkey-admin-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields (partial vs. full updates), rate limits, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 purpose. Every word earns its place: 'Update' (action), 'an existing API key' (resource), and the list of modifiable attributes. There is no wasted text 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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, mutation operation, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the update behavior (e.g., partial vs. full, idempotency), required permissions, response format, or error handling. For a mutation tool with rich parameters but no structured safety hints, the description should provide more contextual guidance.

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 all 10 parameters thoroughly. The description lists the updatable fields ('name, description, scopes, or limits'), which aligns with some parameters but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., 'limits' vaguely maps to 'credit_limit', 'rate_limit_rpm', etc.). 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 ('Update') and resource ('an existing API key') with specific attributes that can be modified ('name, description, scopes, or limits'). It distinguishes from sibling 'create_api_key' by specifying 'existing API key' and from 'delete_api_key' by being an update rather than deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_user' or 'update_workspace' beyond the resource type.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing admin permissions), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new keys), or how it compares to similar tools like 'update_virtual_key' or 'update_user'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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