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 for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update Cost Code' without explaining what 'update' entails—whether it's a partial/full update, permissions required, side effects, or response format. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented for a mutation tool.

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 but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it wastes no words, it fails to provide necessary context. The endpoint path inclusion adds some technical detail but doesn't compensate for the lack of functional explanation.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'Cost Code' is, what fields can be updated, what happens on success/failure, or any behavioral constraints. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool 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%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying a PATCH operation via the endpoint path. This meets the baseline expectation when schema handles parameter 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 Cost Code' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It lacks a specific verb and resource details, failing to clarify what the tool actually does beyond the obvious. No sibling differentiation is provided, making it unclear how this differs from other update tools.

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, context, or any sibling tools for comparison. The agent receives no usage instructions beyond the bare name.

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