Enable Service

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

Annotations only declare the operation is non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: it requires elevated privileges ('sudo') and the effect is persistent across reboots rather than immediate-only. Does not mention idempotency or error behavior on an already-enabled service.

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 terse clauses, front-loaded with the action and its persistence semantics, then the privilege/scope constraint. No filler.

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 mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing pieces (sudo requirement, boot-persistence, system scope). It is complete enough to call correctly, though not rich.

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?

Single parameter 'name' is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), and the description adds nothing about naming format, units, or resolution. Per the high-coverage baseline, 3 is the correct ceiling.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (enable a system service) plus the key scope qualifier 'to start at boot', which cleanly separates it from service_start (start now) and service_disable (the inverse). An agent can identify this tool without opening the schema.

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' is an explicit exclusion that tells the agent when this tool does not apply (user-scope services), and the sibling set makes the start/stop/enable/disable split obvious. No alternative tool is named for the user-scope case, so it stops short of a full 5.

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