bootstrap_service

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 names the operation but does not mention side effects, required privileges, failure conditions (e.g., already-loaded service), or whether the action is reversible. This is minimal for a tool that mutates launchd state.

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: the purpose is stated in the first sentence, and the Args block adds only essential semantic details. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

The description is minimally viable for invoking the tool correctly with the two required arguments, and an output schema exists for return-value context. However, it lacks any mention of side effects, error cases, or operational caveats, which are important for a launchd-mutating tool.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning, and it does: it explains domain_target with concrete examples like 'system', 'user/501', and 'gui/501', and clarifies that plist_path must be an absolute path. This meaningfully goes beyond the bare string type in the schema.

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 states a specific action ('Load a launchd plist into a domain') and names the underlying command (`launchctl bootstrap`), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like bootout_service by describing the opposite 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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as enable_service, kickstart_service, or bootout_service. It provides argument examples but no context about prerequisites, when bootstrap is appropriate, or conditions that should make an agent choose a different tool.

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