Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states 'Update company user' without any behavioral context. It doesn't mention that this is a mutation operation, what permissions are required (though some parameter descriptions hint at Directory Admin needs), whether it's idempotent, or what happens on partial updates. The description adds minimal value beyond the obvious.

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?

While extremely brief, this is under-specification rather than true conciseness. The single phrase 'Update company user' fails to provide necessary context, and the API path '[Core/Directory] PATCH /rest/v1.2/companies/{company_id}/users/{id}' adds technical details but doesn't help the AI understand when or how to use the tool effectively.

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 complex mutation tool with 30 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain the operation's behavior, required permissions, what happens on success/failure, or how partial updates work. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly based solely on this description.

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 30 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's in the schema, but with complete schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description is neutral (doesn't contradict schema), so 4 is appropriate as it doesn't detract from the excellent 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 company user' states the verb and resource, but is extremely vague. It doesn't specify what fields can be updated or the scope of the operation. While it distinguishes from siblings by focusing on user updates, it lacks the specificity needed for clear understanding.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, permissions needed, or any context about when this update operation is appropriate versus creating new users or other user management tools.

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