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 but offers nothing beyond the HTTP method 'PATCH'. It doesn't indicate whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, or what happens on success/failure. The description fails to disclose any behavioral traits beyond the minimal HTTP hint.

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?

While technically concise with only one sentence, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. The bracketed '[Core/File Access & Storage]' and HTTP method information add technical detail but don't contribute to agent understanding. The description fails to front-load useful information for tool selection.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'Project Upload' is, what 'segments' represent, what fields can be updated, or what the expected response looks like. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively compared to the schema-only documentation.

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 documentation in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (project_id, uuid, segments). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description could have explained what 'segments' represent in the context of uploads.

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 clarity. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination and doesn't explain what 'Project Upload' refers to or what aspects are being updated. Compared to sibling tools like 'create_project_upload_v1_1' or 'show_project_upload_v1_1', this description fails to differentiate its 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_v1_1' or 'delete_project_upload_v1_1'. The agent receives no usage direction beyond the vague 'update' action.

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