Update service price

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

The description adds 'affects future invoices', which is useful context beyond the annotation readOnlyHint=false. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether the change is reversible, permissions required, or impact on existing pricing history. The bar is lower due to annotations, but this is a minimal addition.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes a parenthetical note on the effect. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters including two boolean flags (total_price, quantity_based) that alter price calculation semantics, the description is too terse. It explains neither how these flags interact nor the full behavior of the pricing update. The schema covers individual parameter descriptions, but the overall operation context is incomplete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only reiterates 'recurring' and 'selling price', both of which are already in the schema descriptions for selling_price.

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 uses a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('recurring selling price of a contract product'), and adds a distinguishing behavioral effect ('affects future invoices'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like set_contract_product_renewal or update_contract_product_dates.

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 implies usage for price changes affecting future invoices, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No comparison with sibling tools like change_contract_product or set_contract_product_renewal is given.

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