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 Checklist Item' and includes a PATCH method, implying a partial update mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The mention of 'PATCH' hints at partial updates, but this is 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 with two parts: a brief purpose statement and technical details (HTTP method and path). It's front-loaded with the action, but could be more structured by separating functional and technical aspects. No wasted sentences, though it's minimal.

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 (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the update behavior, return values, or error handling. For a mutation tool with multiple required parameters and no structured safety hints, more context is needed 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%, with clear descriptions for parameters like 'list_id' (Checklist ID) and 'item' (Item object). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema provides adequate detail. With high coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate or add value 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 'Update Checklist Item. [Project Management/Inspections] PATCH /rest/v1.0/checklist/lists/{list_id}/items/{id}' restates the tool name and adds an HTTP method and path, but it doesn't specify what fields can be updated or the scope of the update. It distinguishes from siblings by implying it's for checklist items, but lacks detail on what 'update' entails beyond the name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or when to choose this over other update-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'update_checklist', 'update_checklist_inspection').

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