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 a drawing area' which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the update is partial or full, idempotency, or error handling. The HTTP method (PATCH) hints at partial updates, but this isn't explained in the description text itself.

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—just one sentence stating the action. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the inclusion of the API endpoint '[Project Management/Drawings] PATCH /rest/v1.1/projects/{project_id}/drawing_areas/{id}' adds technical detail that might be redundant for an AI agent, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 of an update operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens on success or failure, what fields are updatable (beyond the schema), or any side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps for the 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 descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies 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 clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('a drawing area'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_drawing_area_v1_1' and 'delete_a_drawing_area_v1_1' by specifying the update operation. However, it doesn't detail what aspects of a drawing area can be updated beyond the basic verb, which prevents a perfect score.

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 drawing area), exclusions, or comparisons to other update-related tools in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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