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 Drawing' which implies a mutation operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, side effects, or error handling. The inclusion of '[Project Management/Drawings] PATCH /rest/v1.1/drawing_areas/{drawing_area_id}/drawings/{id}' adds some API context but not operational behavior.

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: 'Update Drawing' and the API path. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The API path adds technical context but does not improve usability for an AI agent. It lacks front-loaded clarity, making it less effective despite its brevity.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It does not explain what a 'drawing' entails in this context, the impact of updates, or expected outcomes. Without annotations or output schema, the agent lacks crucial information for safe and correct invocation.

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 7 parameters (e.g., drawing_area_id, id, number, title, obsolete). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not enhance understanding.

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 Drawing' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'update_drawing_v1_1'. It lacks specificity about what is being updated (e.g., drawing metadata, properties) and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_drawing' or 'update_drawing_discipline_project', which are present in the sibling list. This provides minimal guidance to an AI agent.

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 does not mention prerequisites, constraints, or sibling tools like 'update_drawing' or 'update_drawing_discipline_project' that might be relevant for different update scenarios. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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