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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing that existing invoices/files remain unaffected — valuable reassurance for a replace operation — plus the token expiry/changed-record behavior. It does not describe failure responses or error semantics, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 text is short and every sentence carries information, but it is poorly front-loaded: the core purpose appears in the third sentence, after workflow constraints. 'Requires confirmation' partly repeats the opening sentence's confirmation requirement, costing a little density.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the required workflow, the token contract, side effects on existing data, and the destructive nature. Only the outcome of a successful call (e.g., what is returned or how to verify the new template) is left implicit.

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 exists and the description explicitly constrains it ('Accepts its confirmation_token only') and explains its lifecycle (single-use, expires, invalidated by changes). Although schema coverage is reported as 0%, the schema's own token description plus this text together fully specify the argument's meaning.

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 states a specific action and resource — applying an export-template replacement (name and ordered columns) via a confirmed preview — which distinguishes it from create_export_template and delete_export_template. However, the purpose statement is buried mid-paragraph and phrased awkwardly as 'Prepare replacing an exact template's name and ordered columns', which muddies whether the tool prepares or applies the change.

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 states when to use it (only after the user confirms the preview from preview_update_export_template) and what invalidates the call (changed or expired records require a new preview). The only accepted input is named, and the alternative path is spelled out.

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