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 'Update' (implying mutation) and includes the HTTP method 'PATCH', but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the update is partial or full, side effects (e.g., on attachments or bid items), or error conditions. The description adds minimal context beyond the name.

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 includes the tool's purpose, context, and HTTP method. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the context and method into a second sentence for clarity, but it remains concise with no wasted words.

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 complexity (13 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format. For a mutation tool with many parameters and no structured safety hints, the description should provide more context to guide the agent effectively.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 13 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples or constraints). The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage by the schema alone, with no extra value from the description.

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 ('Update') and resource ('a Bid within a Company'), and includes the context '[Preconstruction/Bid Management]' and HTTP method 'PATCH'. It distinguishes the resource scope (bid within a company) but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_a_bid_from_a_bid_package' or 'update_bid_package', which are present in the sibling 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the context '[Preconstruction/Bid Management]' but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare with sibling tools like 'update_a_bid_from_a_bid_package'. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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