Update catalogs

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds no extra behavioral context. It does not disclose anything about partial failure, atomicity, required fields, or side effects. Sibling update tools often benefit from such context, but here the description is a bare restatement.

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 and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, making it effective for scanning but insufficient for understanding. It earns a high score for conciseness but not perfection due to lacking necessary details.

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 bulk update tool with no output schema and a vague open-world input schema, the description should explain what to pass and what to expect in return. It offers neither, leaving the agent with incomplete information to invoke the tool correctly. The low parameter description coverage and missing return-value semantics make this tool under-described.

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?

The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It only says 'catalogs' are updated, giving no clue about the structure of each catalog object or how the array is interpreted (e.g., partial vs full replace). With additionalProperties allowed, the agent is left without guidance on what fields to include.

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 clearly states the action ('update') and the resource ('catalogs'), and specifies the scope ('multiple'), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool kommo_catalogs_update_one. It directly answers what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The word 'multiple' implies a bulk operation, but there is no mention of single-update alternatives, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. The description does not help an agent decide between this and kommo_catalogs_update_one.

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