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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update a task item comment' which implies a mutation operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the update is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens to existing attachments. The description adds minimal value beyond the basic action.

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—a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes the API endpoint path, which adds technical context without verbosity. Every word earns its place, with zero waste.

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 (12 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the mutation's impact, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with many parameters and no structured safety hints, the description should provide more contextual guidance to ensure correct 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%, so the schema already documents all 12 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters like 'attachments' and 'upload_ids'). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 task item comment'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_a_task_item_comment' and 'delete_a_task_item_comment' by specifying the update operation. However, it lacks specificity about what fields can be updated beyond the generic term 'update'.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing comment ID), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'create_a_task_item_comment' or 'delete_a_task_item_comment'. Usage is implied only by the verb 'Update', but no explicit context is given.

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