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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it names what is preserved (invoice records and generated files), mandates a user confirmation step, and warns about token expiry or drift. It does not describe the response shape, but with the destructive nature already flagged this is a strong disclosure.

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 prerequisite and token constraint are front-loaded, which is good, but 'Requires confirmation' at the end restates the first sentence, and 'Prepare permanently removing an exact configuration template' duplicates what the title and preview routing already establish. Some tightening would help.

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 destructive tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the prerequisite workflow, token validity rules, and post-deletion state. Nearly complete; only the return value or confirmation-of-success behavior is left unstated.

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 reported as 0% at the top level, but the nested confirmation_token does carry a description. The tool description reinforces that only the confirmation_token is accepted and that stale or changed tokens require re-preview, adding validation semantics beyond the raw schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: permanently removing an exact configuration template (a CSV export template), and clarifies that invoice records and generated files remain. An agent can distinguish this from update_export_template or list_export_templates, though the phrasing 'Prepare permanently removing' is slightly awkward and the resource name is implied rather than stated as 'export template'.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use only after preview_delete_export_template and user confirmation of that preview. It also states the exclusion condition – changed or expired records require a new preview – leaving nothing to inference about when this tool is valid.

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