Update multiple catalog elements, such as products, in a single batch operation. Provide existing IDs and new values to modify names and custom fields.
Atualiza elementos (ex: produtos) em lote dentro de um catálogo específico.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| elements | Yes | Lista de elementos a serem atualizados | |
| catalog_id | Yes | ID do catálogo destino | |
| client_slug | Yes | Identificador do cliente (slug) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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 indicates a batch mutation, but it does not disclose partial-failure behavior, merge vs overwrite semantics, idempotency, permissions, or response expectations.
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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action, scope, and example while remaining easy to parse.
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?
The complete schema covers parameter semantics, and the description conveys the core batch-update scope. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks important context about batch behavior, error handling, and return values, making it only minimally adequate.
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%, and every parameter including nested fields has a description. The description only adds the 'em lote' context, which aligns with the elements array, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 a specific action ('Atualiza elementos... em lote') applied to a specific resource ('dentro de um catálogo específico') and even gives an example ('ex: produtos'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_catalog_elements and create_catalog_elements.
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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus create_catalog_elements or get_catalog_elements. It also does not mention prerequisites such as needing existing element IDs, though the schema hints at this.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.