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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false. The description adds real value beyond that: the token-expiry rule, the strict 'exact change as previewed' constraint, and the accounting-setup permission requirement. It does not say what happens on token mismatch (error vs. silent re-preview), a minor remaining gap.

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?

Sentences are individually tight but poorly ordered — the actual purpose ('Prepare a named CSV column template') arrives third, behind procedural confirmation mechanics. A front-loaded purpose statement would make the tool scannable faster.

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 single-parameter, non-destructive, idempotent create with no output schema, the description covers when to call, the token contract, and permissions. Only the return value and failure behavior are unspecified, which is acceptable given the low complexity.

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?

Only one parameter, and the description explains its semantics thoroughly: it must be the token from this operation's preview, applied to the exact previewed change, and invalidated by further changes or expiry. That meaning goes beyond the schema's short property description.

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?

States the specific verb+resource: 'Prepare a named CSV column template using supported source fields', which distinguishes it from the sibling preview_create_export_template and update_export_template. The purpose sentence is buried after procedural text but is unambiguous when found.

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?

Explicit gating: use only after preview_create_export_template and only after the user confirms, accepting only that preview's token, with a stated exclusion (changed or expired records require a new preview). It also names the permission prerequisite, leaving nothing to inference.

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