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 Punch Item' which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, what happens on partial updates, or error conditions. The API path hint suggests a PATCH operation, but this isn't explicitly explained for the agent.

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 with just 5 words plus API metadata. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the API path and category information, while potentially useful for developers, don't add value for an AI agent and could be considered noise.

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 5 parameters (including a nested object), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes a successful update, what the tool returns, or any side effects. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without trial and error.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have explained the relationship between parameters like 'punch_item' object and other fields.

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 Punch Item' clearly states the verb and resource, but it's overly generic. It doesn't specify what fields can be updated or the scope of the operation. While it includes a category hint '[Project Management/Punch List]' and API path, these don't meaningfully differentiate it from sibling tools like 'update_punch_item' or 'update_punch_item_assignment'.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or relationships with other punch item operations. Given the many sibling tools in this domain, the absence of usage context is a significant gap.

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