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. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, required permissions, side effects (e.g., impact on related bid items), or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a destructive operation.

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 two sentences, but the second sentence is a REST endpoint path that adds little value for an AI agent. The first sentence is front-loaded with the core action, but overall structure could be more informative by replacing the endpoint with usage context.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens upon deletion (e.g., confirmation message, error if section has items), return values, or safety considerations. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool confidently.

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 all three parameters clearly documented in the schema (project_id, bid_package_id, bid_form_section_id). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but the schema adequately covers them, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('Bid Form Section'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on a specific deletion operation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other delete operations like 'delete_bid_form' or 'delete_bid_form_item'.

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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., whether the section must be empty), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'delete_bid_form' or 'delete_bid_form_item'. The agent receives no usage direction.

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