unit_disable_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the useful constraint 'Refused for units on the protected list' and clarifies that the operation affects boot behavior, not current runtime state. However, it omits other important traits such as permission requirements, idempotency, and effect on an already-running unit.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the protected-list restriction earns its place as a direct, important constraint. Nothing extraneous is included.

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 tool with an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient: it identifies the operation, the target, and a key refusal condition. But it lacks any guidance about alternatives and does not disclose the broader behavioral consequences of disabling a unit, which matters more because there are no annotations to fill the gap.

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%: the only parameter, unit_name, is documented as 'Systemd unit name.' The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but none is needed given the simple schema and the tool's clear purpose.

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: 'Disable a unit from starting on boot.' This clearly separates boot-time disabling from runtime stop/start operations and identifies the tool's core function. The added protected-list refusal further clarifies scope.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like unit_mask_tool, unit_stop_tool, or unit_enable_tool. The protected-list note implies one exclusion, but it does not say what to do instead or under what conditions the tool should be chosen.

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