set_startup_item

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

Annotations already declare idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world mutation. The description adds real content beyond them: the exact side effect per item type (hide vs. disable), where the override lives, and the reassurance that 'Nothing is deleted'. It stops short of stating permissions needed or whether changes apply immediately.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first, then the per-type mechanics in a parenthetical, then the non-destruction guarantee. Dense but every clause carries information; only the colon-and-parenthetical nesting slightly slows parsing.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition explains the mechanism well but says nothing about return values (prior state? new state?) or error behavior for unknown names. The potential overlap with set_service_startup is left unresolved.

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 67% and both 'name' and 'location' already carry descriptions referencing list_startup_items. The description adds the distinction between 'hidden' and 'disabled' but gives no extra meaning to the 'enabled' boolean or to what happens when neither autostart nor unit variant matches.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Turns a startup item on or off', with the two concrete mechanisms spelled out (autostart entry hidden via a user-folder override; systemd user unit disabled). It does not name a sibling, so an agent must infer how this differs from set_service_startup, which also manipulates systemd units.

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 only implied: you need an item name 'as list_startup_items gives it', which nudges the agent to list first, and the location param hints at disambiguating duplicates. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over set_service_startup, or of preconditions and failure cases.

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