Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but does not specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to associated data. The API endpoint hint suggests a REST DELETE operation, but no further behavioral traits (like side effects or error conditions) are described.

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 concise with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Delete Bid Form Item') and includes domain context and API endpoint efficiently. However, the tautological nature and lack of useful guidance slightly reduce its effectiveness despite the brevity.

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?

Given that this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'Bid Form Item' is, what the deletion entails, or what the response looks like. The agent lacks sufficient context to understand the tool's full impact and behavior.

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%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (project_id, bid_package_id, bid_form_item_id). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but the schema is comprehensive. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 'Delete Bid Form Item' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb and resource context beyond the name, and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_bid_form' or 'delete_bid_form_section'. The inclusion of '[Preconstruction/Bid Management]' and the API endpoint provides some domain context but does not clarify what the tool actually does beyond the obvious.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions for use, or any sibling tools that might be relevant (e.g., other deletion tools in the bid management context). The agent is left with no usage instructions.

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