Apply a single status, stock, or price patch to multiple selected product records at once, after user confirmation.
Bulk-update selected product records with a single patch (status, set/adjust stock, set/adjust price). Stock is units; price is minor units. Only call after the user confirms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| patch | No | Single patch applied to every selected record | |
| modelId | No | Product model id | |
| selection | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.73.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that a single patch is applied to every selected record, clarifies units (stock in units, price in minor units), and warns that user confirmation is required. However, it does not mention irreversibility, side effects, or what happens if conflicts arise.
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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, adds the unit clarification, and ends with the safety condition. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
This is a complex tool with nested selection semantics, yet the description omits how selection works (ids vs filter vs allMatching) and what happens when no selection is provided. There are no annotations and no output schema, so the description needs to cover more ground to be complete. The confirmation note is good, but major operational gaps remain.
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 67%, so the description must add some meaning. It does clarify patch behavior and units beyond the schema, but the selection parameter—central to this tool—is not explained at all. Nested filter fields like priceMin, stockState, and hasVariants are left entirely to the schema, which lacks descriptions for them.
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 verb ('Bulk-update'), a clear resource ('selected product records'), and the exact fields affected (status, stock, price). This distinguishes it from siblings like bulk_delete_products and update_record without needing to open schemas.
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 phrase 'selected product records' and 'single patch' clearly imply a bulk operation, contrasting with single-record updates. The explicit instruction 'Only call after the user confirms' provides a firm precondition, though no alternative tools are named or exclusion cases stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.