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. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, what happens to existing tax code data not mentioned in parameters, or any rate limits. The PATCH method hint suggests partial updates but isn't explicitly explained.

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 two short phrases. While under-specified, it wastes no words and is front-loaded with the core action. The API path information, while not directly helpful for tool selection, is efficiently appended without disrupting the main statement.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'updating' entails operationally, what the response looks like, error conditions, or system behavior. The agent must rely entirely on the parameter schema without understanding the tool's overall behavior or consequences.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples, or clarify edge cases. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate schema coverage with no value added by the description.

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 Tax Code' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It lacks a clear verb+resource combination and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_tax_code' or 'list_tax_codes'. The bracketed text '[Construction Financials/Tax] PATCH /rest/v1.0/tax_codes/{id}' provides API context but doesn't clarify the tool's 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'create_tax_code' or 'sync_tax_codes'. The agent receives zero usage direction beyond the tool name itself.

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