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 versioning ('Creates a new version'), which is helpful, but doesn't address critical aspects like whether this operation requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens to previous versions, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 sentences that directly communicate the core functionality. Every word earns its place—the first sentence states the action, and the second adds crucial behavioral context about versioning. There's no fluff 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?

For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. While it mentions versioning, it doesn't cover permissions, side effects, error handling, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity of updating a resource with multiple fields and status changes, more context is needed for the agent to use this tool 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 all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting, but provides no extra value about parameter interactions or usage context.

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 partial') and resource ('prompt partial'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It also adds valuable context about versioning ('Creates a new version with the changes'), which distinguishes it from simple overwrite operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_prompt' or 'publish_partial'.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing prompt partial), when to choose this over 'create_prompt_partial' or 'delete_prompt_partial', or any constraints on usage. The agent must infer usage 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.