Update product or service

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context with the note that `defaultSalesTaxIds` replaces the entire list rather than appending. However, it never states the core mutation semantic an agent most needs: whether omitted fields are left untouched (partial update) or cleared, nor what a destructive update here actually overwrites.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the replacement warning is placed immediately after the purpose statement where it will be read. Only minor weakness is that the first sentence is terse to the point of near-vagueness.

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 7-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the purpose and one dangerous parameter but omits partial-vs-full update semantics and whether the updated product is returned. It is adequate to invoke, not adequate to invoke confidently.

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 only 57%, and the description compensates for exactly the riskiest field by explaining that `defaultSalesTaxIds` is a full replacement. It adds nothing for `name`, `unitPrice`, or `description`, which are undocumented in both places, so the compensation is partial.

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?

"Change a product/service" names a specific verb and resource, and the required `id` makes clear it operates on an existing record rather than creating one. It is distinguishable from wave_create_product and wave_archive_product by implication, though those siblings are never named.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus wave_create_product, wave_archive_product, or wave_get_product, and no prerequisites or preconditions are stated. The agent must infer that this is the edit path for an already-existing product.

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