Procore MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'PATCH' which implies mutation, but doesn't describe side effects, permissions needed, error handling, or rate limits. The description fails to explain what 'batch' means operationally (atomicity, rollback behavior) or what the '[Company Admin/Custom - Configurable Tools]' context entails.

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?

While brief, the description is under-specified rather than concise. The single sentence contains redundant information (repeating the tool name) and cryptic tags that don't add clarity. It's front-loaded with the tautological title but lacks any useful elaboration. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't provide sufficient value.

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 batch mutation tool with 6 parameters (including complex array items) and no annotations or output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'Generic Tool Items' are, what constitutes a valid update, what the response looks like, or any error conditions. The '[Company Admin/Custom - Configurable Tools]' context is unexplained, leaving the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (like how generic_tool_items array should be structured) or provide examples. 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 'Batch Update Generic Tool Items' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what 'Generic Tool Items' are, what fields can be updated, or what 'batch update' entails beyond the obvious. The HTTP method and path provide technical details but don't clarify the business purpose.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparison to sibling tools (like other batch_update_* tools in the list). The '[Company Admin/Custom - Configurable Tools]' tag is cryptic and doesn't offer actionable usage guidance.

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