Disable Service

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the write nature is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: it requires sudo and applies to system scope only, telling the agent about the privilege requirement and the persistence (boot-time behavior) of the change.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action and its boot-time scope lead, and the privilege/scope caveats follow.

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 no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the privilege and scope constraints an agent needs. It does not state that the currently running service is unaffected, a minor omission.

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% with the single 'name' parameter self-documented as the service name. The description adds no format or naming guidance beyond the schema, so 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 gives a specific verb ('Disable') and resource ('a system service'), and clarifies the scope of the action by tying it to 'starting at boot' rather than stopping the service now. That distinguishes it from the service_stop sibling, though it never names the alternative explicitly.

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?

'System scope only' implicitly signals that user-level services are out of scope, and the '(sudo)' note implies elevated privileges are required. However, it never states when to prefer this over service_stop or service_enable, leaving the use case to inference.

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