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 mentions that updates 'creates a new version with the changes,' which hints at versioning behavior, but fails to cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or what the response looks like (e.g., success confirmation or new version details). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise with just two short sentences that directly state the tool's function and key behavioral note (versioning). There is no wasted text, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity of 13 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, permissions, or how the versioning system works. For a mutation tool with rich input schema but no other structured data, the description should provide more contextual guidance to be fully helpful.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, thoroughly documenting all 13 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between fields or usage examples. However, since the schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the 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 an existing prompt template') and the resource ('prompt template'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_prompt_label' or 'update_prompt_partial' beyond mentioning 'prompt template' specifically, which is why it doesn't reach 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 'create_prompt' or 'migrate_prompt', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an existing prompt ID. It lacks explicit usage context, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone.

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