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 'Update' implying a mutation, but lacks details on permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or response format. It mentions 'add custom models' but doesn't clarify if this creates new models or modifies existing ones. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral 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 with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('Update model access settings for an integration') and specifies key actions ('enable/disable models or add custom models'). Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse.

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 incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., side effects, error handling), usage context, and output expectations. While concise, it doesn't compensate for the missing structured data, leaving gaps for an agent to understand the tool fully.

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 fully documents both parameters ('slug' and 'models'). The description adds marginal value by implying 'models' includes configurations for enabling/disabling or adding custom models, but doesn't provide syntax or format details beyond what the schema already specifies. 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 target ('model access settings for an integration'), specifying what gets updated ('enable/disable models or add custom models'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_integration' (which likely updates integration metadata) by focusing on model access. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'delete_integration_model' (which might remove models entirely).

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 an existing integration), exclusions (e.g., not for removing models), or sibling tools like 'list_integration_models' (to see current settings) or 'delete_integration_model' (for removal). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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