Misinterpretation of catalog_object_id in docs

[kyeshmz]

Describe the bug
There are multiple places in the API where the JSDoc states that I need to add a catalog_object_id, when in fact, I need to provide a item_variation_id.

This might be the case where "all things are objects", but it would be better for the docs and the API to state that this needs to be a variation ID.

Example:
When hitting this API.
https://developer.squareup.com/explorer/square/inventory-api/retrieve-inventory-count

This is the error I get if I pass catalog_object_id.

'{"errors":[{"category":"INVALID_REQUEST_ERROR","code":"NOT_FOUND","detail":"Item variation with catalog object ID `<redacted>` not found."}]}'

The errors are clear enough that I understand a bit to pass a variation Id, but updating the docs and the jsdocs would be better.

EDIT:
So for this instance, this seems a bit weird for the end user to understand which one I pass.

  /** The [CatalogItemVariation](entity:CatalogItemVariation) ID applied to this line item. */
    catalogObjectId?: string | null;

Expected behavior
Have the docs show I need a variation ID.