disable_service

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states the underlying launchctl command but does not disclose persistence, permission requirements, reversibility, or side effects. 'Disable' implies mutation, but an agent is left to infer what actually changes.

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 compact and front-loaded. It states the action, mentions the underlying mechanism, and documents the only parameter. There is no filler or redundant information.

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 minimally viable. However, it lacks usage differentiation, behavioral side effects, and any note about persistence or permissions. These gaps matter for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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?

The schema only declares service_target as a string with no description. The tool description compensates with concrete examples: 'system/com.example.daemon' and 'gui/501/com.example.agent'. This adds real semantic value and guides the agent on the expected format.

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 has a clear verb and resource: 'Disable a service via launchctl disable.' It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like list_services, enable_service, and kickstart_service because it states the exact action and mechanism.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bootout_service or enable_service. The description implies the purpose but does not specify when disabling is the right operation, what prerequisites exist, or when to prefer another sibling.

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