Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Update' (implying mutation) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether updates are idempotent, side effects on related data, or error conditions. The PATCH method hint suggests partial updates, but this isn't explicitly stated. The description adds minimal context beyond the obvious mutation intent.

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 brief but under-specified—it wastes characters on tautological restatement and an API endpoint that doesn't aid the agent. It's front-loaded with the tool name but lacks meaningful structure. While not verbose, it fails to use its limited space effectively to clarify purpose or usage.

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 a mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'segment item' represents in the Work Breakdown Structure, what happens on update, or what the response contains. The agent lacks critical context to use the tool confidently, relying entirely on the input schema.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema—it doesn't explain relationships between project_id, segment_id, and id, or clarify optional fields like code, name, status, and sub_job_id. With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as 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 'Update Project Segment Item' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It includes a bracketed context hint ('Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure') and a PATCH endpoint path, but fails to specify what a 'segment item' is or what fields can be updated. Compared to siblings like 'update_project' or 'update_project_segment', it doesn't distinguish its specific scope.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing segment items), exclusions, or sibling tools like 'create_project_segment_item' or 'delete_project_segment_item'. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and schema.

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