Update sales tax

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the non-obvious reason why: 'rates replaces the dated rate list' so existing entries must be re-included or they are lost. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before a destructive write and is not derivable from the schema. It stops short of stating whether the other fields are partial-patch or full-replace semantics.

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 sentences, no filler. The core operation is front-loaded and the destructive replacement warning follows immediately, with the pointer to wave_get_sales_tax attached at the exact point of relevance.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema and only 14% schema coverage across seven parameters, the description covers the single biggest hazard (rate-list replacement) but leaves the remaining optional fields and the partial-vs-full update question unaddressed. Adequate for the critical path, incomplete overall.

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 14%, so the description must carry weight, and it does explain 'rates' replacement semantics and its effective-date requirement better than the schema does. But name, taxNumber, description, abbreviation, and showTaxNumberOnInvoices receive no mention anywhere, leaving five of seven parameters semantically bare.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Change a sales tax'), and the follow-on sentence narrows it to rate edits, which distinguishes it from wave_create_sales_tax and wave_archive_sales_tax by implication. It does not explicitly state that only the supplied fields are modified versus a full replace, but the core purpose is immediately legible.

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?

It gives one solid conditional rule: to change the rate, pass 'rates' with an effective date. It also routes the agent to wave_get_sales_tax for reading the current dated list. However, there is no guidance on when to use this versus wave_archive_sales_tax or wave_create_sales_tax, nor on which of the other six fields are safe to update.

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