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 but offers nothing beyond the operation name. It doesn't indicate whether this is a destructive operation (implied by 'Delete' but not explicit), what permissions are required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, or what happens to associated data. This is critically inadequate for a deletion tool.

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 technically concise but under-specified. The two-part structure (operation name + API path) is efficient, but the content is insufficient for understanding the tool's purpose and behavior. It's brief but not effectively communicative.

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 deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a budget modification is, what deletion entails, potential side effects, or return values. The agent cannot safely or effectively use this tool based on the provided description alone.

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 parameter descriptions ('Unique identifier for the project' and 'ID'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema, but with complete schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 Budget Modification' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It adds the API endpoint path '[Construction Financials/Budget] DELETE /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/budget_modifications/{id}', which provides technical context but doesn't articulate what the tool actually does in user terms. It fails to specify what a 'budget modification' is or what deletion entails.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, consequences, or relationship to sibling tools like 'create_budget_modification' or 'update_budget_modification'. The agent receives no usage context beyond the bare operation name.

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