unit_enable_tool

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the core effect (configuring boot-time startup) but does not mention side effects like modifying systemd configuration, permission requirements, or that enabling does not start the unit 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?

The description is a single sentence that conveys the tool's purpose with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

With one required parameter and an output schema, the description plus schema form a minimally adequate contract for making the call. However, it lacks context about side effects, permissions, and the distinction from immediately starting a unit, which could lead to misuse for an immediate-start request.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single unit_name parameter. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, such as accepted unit name formats or whether the '.service' suffix is required, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific operation ('Enable'), a resource ('a unit'), and the intent ('to start on boot'), which is unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like unit_start_tool (immediate start) and unit_disable_tool (reverse operation).

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?

The boot-time context implies when to use the tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling to prefer. It leaves routing decisions to inference rather than naming alternatives or exclusions.

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