set_service_startup

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context by defining 'disabled' as masked ('cannot be started'), which signals a stronger state change than a mere stop. It still omits whether the change applies immediately, whether a running service is stopped, and whether privileges are required.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the mode semantics and the platform caveat. No filler; the only weak spot is that the automatic_delayed caveat appears without first saying the tool is Linux/systemd-only beyond the implicit 'systemd' word.

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 destructive, idempotent configuration mutation with no output schema, the description covers what each target state means but not side effects (does disabling stop a running unit?), privilege requirements, or failure behavior. Adequate to call correctly, but not complete enough to predict consequences.

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 coverage is 50%: 'startup' is documented in the schema while 'name' is not. The description adds genuine semantics by mapping each mode to its systemd meaning (automatic=enabled, manual=disabled-on-demand, disabled=masked) and by warning that 'automatic_delayed' is not valid on Linux. It leaves 'name' underspecified — no example like 'nginx.service' — so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 ('Sets how a systemd service starts') and enumerates the three resulting states, so the agent knows exactly what the mutation does. It does not name or differentiate itself from plausible siblings such as control_service or set_startup_item, which would have pushed it to a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'systemd service', which scopes it away from get_service/list_services (read operations) and set_startup_item (likely OS startup items rather than systemd units). However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus control_service, no stated prerequisites such as root privileges, and no guidance on choosing among the modes beyond their definitions.

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