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. 'Update' implies mutation, but the description doesn't mention required permissions, whether changes are reversible, side effects, or response format. It adds minimal context beyond the HTTP method and endpoint path.

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 brief but under-specified rather than efficiently concise. The endpoint path information is useful but doesn't compensate for the lack of functional explanation. It's front-loaded but incomplete.

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 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It should explain what a 'project person' represents, what fields can be updated, permissions required, and expected response format given the complexity.

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 10 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but doesn't need to compensate for gaps. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 'Update project person' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't explain what 'project person' means or what aspects are updated, nor does it distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_company_person' or 'update_a_person'.

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. No context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or distinctions from similar update tools is mentioned.

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