Procore MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to existing upload data, whether changes are reversible, or any rate limits. The API path suggests it's a PATCH operation, but this isn't explained in user-friendly terms.

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 at just one sentence with technical annotations. While it's front-loaded with the core purpose, it lacks explanatory content that would help an agent understand the tool's function. The efficiency is high but comes at the cost of clarity.

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 insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'updating a project upload' entails, what fields can be modified, what the expected response looks like, or any error conditions. The technical API path doesn't compensate for the lack of functional explanation needed for an AI agent 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%, with clear descriptions for project_id ('Unique identifier for the project'), uuid ('Upload UUID'), and segments ('Upload segments'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate schema coverage.

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 Upload' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_project_upload_v1_1' or 'create_project_upload'. The bracketed '[Core/File Access & Storage]' and API path provide technical metadata but don't clarify the functional purpose.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparison with sibling tools like 'create_project_upload' or 'update_project_upload_v1_1'. The agent receives no help in selecting this tool over other options.

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