Unit Disable Tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add the useful side-effect that operations on protected units are refused. However, it omits other common behavioral traits, such as whether a currently running unit is unaffected, whether root privileges are required, or whether the operation is reversible via enable. The protected-list disclosure earns a pass, but the description could be more transparent.

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 description is two sentences with zero filler. The core action is stated first, and the protected-list exception is appended as a necessary behavioral note. Every sentence contributes; this is an example of appropriately concise and well-structured text.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely adequate: it states what the tool does and the key exception. However, it does not mention that disabling a unit does not stop it if it is currently running, which is a common misunderstanding and could lead to incorrect tool selection. Given the low complexity, the description is functional but not fully complete for an agent unfamiliar with systemd.

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 is documented as 'Systemd unit name'), so the description adds no extra semantics. That is acceptable per the baseline rule, though the description does not clarify whether the unit name should include the .service suffix or other common format details.

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 'Disable a unit from starting on boot' clearly states the specific action (disable) and resource (unit) and scope (at boot), which distinguishes it from tools like unit_start_tool or unit_stop_tool. It does not explicitly contrast with unit_mask_tool or unit_enable_tool, but the boot-time focus is enough to make the primary purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over siblings such as unit_mask_tool, unit_stop_tool, or unit_enable_tool. The only additional sentence mentions a refusal condition (protected list) but does not help an agent decide between alternatives. This is a clear gap for a tool with many closely related siblings.

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