portkey-admin-mcp

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It implies a mutation ('Update') but doesn't disclose permissions required, whether updates are reversible, rate limits, or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool that modifies critical resources like API keys and limits.

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 action and resource, then enumerates updatable fields without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place.

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 insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., side effects, auth needs), response format, or error conditions. Given the complexity of updating sensitive items like API keys and limits, more context is needed for safe use.

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 all 7 parameters. The description adds minimal value by listing updatable fields ('name, API key, note, or limits'), but doesn't explain semantics beyond what's in schema descriptions (e.g., what 'credit_limit' or 'alert_threshold' mean in practice). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource ('existing virtual key'), specifying what can be updated: 'name, API key, note, or limits'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_virtual_key' by focusing on updates, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other update tools like 'update_api_key'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the virtual key's slug), exclusions (e.g., what cannot be updated), or compare to siblings like 'update_api_key' or 'get_virtual_key' for checking current values.

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