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 Budget Modification' which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on partial updates, or what the response contains. The PATCH method hint is minimal behavioral context, but insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 concise (one sentence with endpoint details) but poorly structured. It front-loads the tautological name restatement rather than useful information. While not verbose, it wastes its limited space on technical endpoint details that don't help the agent understand the tool's purpose or usage.

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 mutation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'budget modification' is, what fields can be updated, what the update does functionally, or what to expect in response. The agent must rely entirely on the parameter schema without contextual understanding of the operation's effects or purpose.

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 detailed parameter descriptions in the schema itself (e.g., notes on 'from_budget_line_item_id' constraints). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the comprehensive schema documentation.

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 'Update Budget Modification. [Construction Financials/Budget] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/budget_modifications/{id}' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name and adds technical endpoint details. It lacks a clear, specific explanation of what the tool does (e.g., 'Modify an existing budget transfer between line items'). While it mentions the domain ('Construction Financials/Budget'), it doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'create_budget_modification' or 'delete_budget_modification'.

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 budget modification ID), when not to use it, or refer to sibling tools like 'create_budget_modification' or 'delete_budget_modification'. The agent receives no usage context beyond the tool name.

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