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. It states 'Update' which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, or what happens on success/failure. The HTTP method 'PATCH' hints at partial updates, but this isn't explained in the description text itself. No rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects are mentioned.

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 inefficiently structured. The first part 'Update Wbs Attribute Item' is redundant, while the bracketed technical details could be better integrated. It's not appropriately front-loaded with useful information for an AI agent, though it doesn't waste excessive space.

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 4 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'Wbs Attribute Item' is, what fields can be updated beyond 'name', what the expected response looks like, or any error conditions. The technical path provides some context but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and semantic information.

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 all parameters clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in 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 Wbs Attribute Item' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb and resource context, making it vague. The bracketed path '[Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure] PATCH /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/projects/{project_id}/wbs/attribute_items/{wbs_attribute_item_id}' provides technical details but doesn't explain what the tool actually does in plain terms.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or sibling tools that might be relevant (like 'create_wbs_attribute_item_v2_0' or 'delete_wbs_attribute_item_v2_0'). This leaves the agent without any usage direction.

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