Procore MCP Server

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. 'Create drawing upload' implies a write/mutation operation but reveals nothing about permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent (despite the Idempotency-Token parameter), rate limits, error conditions, or what happens upon success. The description fails to provide any behavioral context beyond the basic action implied by the name.

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 technically concise with just one sentence, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The HTTP method and endpoint information ('POST /rest/v1.1/projects/{project_id}/drawing_uploads') is redundant for an AI agent that doesn't need API implementation details. The description fails to front-load essential information about what the tool actually does in user-facing terms.

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 creation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'drawing upload' represents in the system, what happens after creation, or any behavioral aspects. The agent must rely entirely on the parameter schema without contextual understanding of the operation's purpose, outcomes, or 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 the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter information whatsoever - it doesn't mention any of the parameters, their purposes, or relationships. However, with complete schema coverage, the baseline score is 3 as the schema carries the parameter documentation burden adequately.

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 'Create drawing upload' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It lacks specificity about what resource is being created (a drawing upload record) and what the operation entails. While the category '[Project Management/Drawings]' provides some context, it doesn't clearly articulate the verb+resource combination or distinguish this from sibling tools like 'create_drawing_set' or 'create_drawing_area'.

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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple drawing-related creation tools in the sibling list (create_drawing_set, create_drawing_area, create_drawing_v1_1), but the description offers no differentiation. The agent receives no information about prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when this specific tool should be selected.

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