Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only restates the tool name and includes an API endpoint path. It doesn't disclose that this is a destructive operation (despite 'delete' in the name), doesn't mention permissions required, rate limits, or what happens upon success/failure. For a bulk deletion tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 under-specified rather than concise. It wastes space repeating the tool name and includes an API endpoint that doesn't help the AI agent understand the tool's purpose or usage. The single sentence doesn't earn its place by adding value beyond what's already in the structured data.

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?

This is a destructive bulk deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description fails to address critical context: it doesn't warn about irreversible data loss, doesn't explain what 'bulk' means operationally, doesn't mention error handling for partial failures, and doesn't describe the return format. For a complex mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 already documents all four parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'Bulk Delete Managed Equipment Attachment' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'delete_managed_equipment_attachment' (singular delete) or 'bulk_delete_managed_equipment' (deletes equipment, not attachments). The description is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 are no explicit when/when-not instructions, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to sibling tools that handle similar operations. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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