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 operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether the deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, or if there are side effects (e.g., cascading deletions). The endpoint path adds technical context but no operational guidance.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Delete equipment attachment (Company)') and includes the endpoint path for technical reference. There is no wasted verbiage, though the endpoint detail might be more technical than necessary for an AI agent.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks information on success/error responses, confirmation prompts, or any safety warnings. Given the tool's complexity (deletion with three required IDs), more context is needed to guide safe and correct usage.

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 (equipment_id, attachment_id, company_id) documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context about these parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or relationships between IDs. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 the resource ('equipment attachment (Company)'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_equipment_attachment_project_v2_0' by specifying the company context, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other deletion tools in the list.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description includes a technical endpoint path but offers no context about prerequisites, permissions, or scenarios where this deletion is appropriate compared to other attachment management tools.

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