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 Instruction' and includes 'DELETE', implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors like whether deletion is permanent or reversible, required permissions, side effects (e.g., on related data), or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 but under-specified. It includes the tool name, a category hint ('[Project Management/Daily Log]'), and an HTTP path, but lacks meaningful explanatory content. While not verbose, it fails to provide essential information, making it inefficient rather than optimally concise.

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 the tool's complexity (a destructive operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'Instruction' is in this context, the consequences of deletion, or what the response might be. For a mutation tool, this leaves critical gaps in understanding for an agent.

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 'Instruction ID'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema adequately documents the inputs. With high coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate or add value here.

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 Instruction. [Project Management/Daily Log] DELETE /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/instructions/{id}' restates the tool name ('Delete Instruction') and adds an HTTP method and path, but lacks a clear, specific verb+resource explanation. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools (e.g., other delete operations like 'delete_a_budget_change' or 'delete_instruction_type'), making it vague about what exactly is being deleted beyond the name.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing instruction), exclusions, or related tools (e.g., 'create_instructions' or 'show_instruction'), leaving the agent with no usage context.

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