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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new context: the template questions are snapshotted at attach time so later template edits don't affect in-progress forms, the required form_responses:write scope, and that the record is only created for filling in later. It stops short of saying what happens if the same template is attached twice to the same record, which the non-idempotent hint makes relevant.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and each subsequent sentence carries distinct value (the PM-schedule alternative, the snapshot behavior, the out-of-API completion path, the scope requirement). At roughly five sentences it is somewhat long for the amount of information conveyed, but there is little 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?

For a three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, alternatives, side effects, out-of-band workflow and auth scope, which is nearly everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The only gap is that it does not indicate what identifier is returned from a successful attach.

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% and each of the three parameters carries its own rich description (subject_id resolution path, template_id publish requirement and rejection of drafts/archived, subject_type enum). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Attach a published form to one record so it can be filled in') and clarifies the real-world outcome with a concrete example (inspection/checklist on an existing work order). It is clearly distinguishable from create_form_template and update_form_template, which are the adjacent siblings an agent might confuse it with.

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 away from per-record calls when the goal is PM-schedule-driven forms ('set form_template_id on the schedule instead of calling this per work order'), and states that answering/completing the form happens in the AssetLab app, not this API. Both a when-to-use and a when-not-to-use condition are given.

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