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 mentions 'Update' (implying mutation) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens to unspecified fields, or error handling. The API endpoint hint ('PATCH') suggests partial updates, but this isn't explained. The description is minimal and misses critical mutation context.

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 very concise—just one sentence with an endpoint hint. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, it's arguably too brief for a mutation tool with no annotations, leaving out necessary context. Every word earns its place, but more might be needed for completeness.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or side effects. The endpoint hint is useful but insufficient. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, the description should provide more operational context.

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 fully documents all 9 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions the tool name and endpoint but doesn't clarify parameter roles or interactions. Baseline 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 states the action ('Update') and resource ('Drawing Revision'), but it's vague about what fields can be updated. It includes a category tag '[Project Management/Drawings]' and API endpoint, which adds some context but doesn't clearly differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'update_drawing' or 'update_drawing_set'.

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 sibling tool list includes many update-related tools (e.g., 'update_drawing', 'update_drawing_set'), but the description doesn't help the agent choose between them. It lacks prerequisites, constraints, or comparison to siblings.

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