portkey-admin-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: it's a mutation tool (implied by 'Update'), specifies which filters can be modified ('time_of_generation_max') versus those that cannot ('time_min, cost, tokens, models'), and mentions updatable fields ('workspace_id and requested data fields'). This provides good context 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose with important constraints, and the second adds supplementary details. Every sentence earns its place by providing critical usage information without redundancy, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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 (mutation with constraints), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job of covering essential context: purpose, usage constraints, and parameter semantics. However, it lacks details on error conditions, response format, or permissions needed, which would enhance completeness for a mutation tool.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds some semantic context by clarifying that 'time_of_generation_max' is modifiable post-creation and 'requested_fields' includes specific data options, but this mostly reinforces rather than significantly extends 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 verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing log export configuration'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_log_export' by focusing on modifications rather than creation, and from 'get_log_export' by emphasizing configuration changes.

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 on when to use this tool by specifying that only certain fields can be modified after creation, implying it should be used for post-creation adjustments. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like 'create_log_export' for initial setup, which prevents a perfect score.

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