Procore MCP Server

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

The description provides no behavioral information beyond the implied destructive action of 'Delete'. With no annotations provided, it fails to disclose critical traits: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, required permissions, side effects, or error conditions. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise ('Delete layer') but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The bracketed context '[Project Management/Document Markup]' and URL path add some value but aren't integrated into a coherent description. While brief, it fails to convey necessary information for a destructive operation.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'layer' represents, what deletion entails (permanent? recoverable?), or what the response looks like. Given the complexity implied by the URL path and the destructive nature, more context is needed for safe 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 (company_id, project_id, layer_id) documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, but since schema coverage is complete, the 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 layer' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what a 'layer' is in this context (Project Management/Document Markup) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'delete_a_layer' or other deletion tools in the list. The URL path provides some context but isn't part of the descriptive text.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, permissions needed, or what happens after deletion (e.g., irreversible action). With many sibling deletion tools present (e.g., delete_a_layer, delete_category, delete_project), the agent has no help selecting among them.

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