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 of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't address permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.

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 specifies the modifiable fields. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage context from functionality.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers basic purpose and parameters but lacks critical behavioral details like permissions, side effects, error conditions, and return values. For a tool that modifies data, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it safely and effectively.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing the modifiable fields ('feedback value, weight, or metadata'), but doesn't provide additional syntax, constraints, or examples beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 existing feedback by ID') and specifies what can be modified ('feedback value, weight, or metadata'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_feedback' or other update operations, though the 'by ID' and 'after initial creation' phrasing implies some distinction.

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 implies usage context through 'after initial creation' and 'by ID,' suggesting this tool is for modifying existing feedback rather than creating new entries. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'create_feedback' or other update tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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