Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive operation, but doesn't disclose whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to associated data. The HTTP method (DELETE) is mentioned, but this is technical rather than behavioral context. The description lacks critical safety and operational information 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 inefficiently structured. The first part 'Delete Project Webhooks Hook' is redundant with the name. The platform tag and HTTP endpoint provide technical context but aren't front-loaded with user-relevant information. While brief, it wastes space on repetition rather than delivering value.

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 deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'webhooks hook' is, what gets deleted, whether deletion is permanent, what permissions are needed, or what the response looks like. The technical endpoint information doesn't compensate for missing behavioral and contextual information needed for safe tool invocation.

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. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description. The description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the comprehensive schema.

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 Project Webhooks Hook' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It includes a platform tag and HTTP method/endpoint, but these are technical details that don't explain what the tool actually does in user-facing terms. The description fails to specify what resource is being deleted (a webhook configuration) or what the consequences are.

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 (like needing an existing webhook), related tools (like create_project_webhooks_hook_v2_0 or list_project_webhooks_hooks_v2_0 from the sibling list), or any context about webhook management. The agent receives no help in determining appropriate usage scenarios.

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