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. It implies a mutation ('Update'), but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the update is partial or full (hinted by 'PATCH' in the path but not explained), what happens on success/failure, or any side effects. The description is minimal and lacks necessary operational context.

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 not well-structured or front-loaded. It includes extraneous details like the API path and category tag ('[Project Management/Daily Log]') that do not aid understanding, while omitting essential usage information. It is under-specified rather than concise, wasting space on irrelevant technicalities.

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 the complexity (a mutation tool with nested objects and no annotations or output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the update behavior, expected input format for 'waste_log', the multipart requirement for attachments, or what the tool returns. With no output schema, the description should compensate by outlining response expectations, but it does not.

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 fully documents the four parameters (project_id, id, waste_log, attachments). The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters—it does not explain what fields 'waste_log' object expects or clarify the 'attachments' multipart requirement beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 states the action ('Update') and resource ('Waste Log'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it does not differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'create_waste_log' or 'delete_waste_log', and the inclusion of the API path and category tag adds noise without enhancing clarity about what the tool does functionally.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing waste log ID), compare it to create or delete operations, or specify any contextual triggers for updates. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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