enable_service

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool invokes launchctl enable, but does not describe side effects—such as whether this affects boot-time loading, whether it starts the service immediately, whether privileges are required, or whether it only affects future sessions. The lack of behavioral context is a significant gap for a mutating operation.

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 short and front-loaded with the operation and command. The Args section is structured and the examples are directly useful. It wastes no words, though it could contain more behavioral or usage context without becoming bloated.

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 tool has only one parameter and an output schema exists, so formal call structure is covered. However, the description omits operational context: how this relates to bootstrap/kickstart/disable siblings, when enabling is the right choice, and what the observable result will be. For a system-mutating tool, this is insufficiently complete.

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 describes service_target only as a string with no explanation. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does provide useful format examples ('system/com.example.daemon' or 'gui/501/com.example.agent'), which adds meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it stops short of explaining what valid targets exist, how to find them, or why the user identifier matters.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Enable a service via `launchctl enable`.' The resource is the service_target, and the examples clarify what kind of service targets are accepted. It is more specific than a pure tautology and distinguishes the operation from sibling disable_service. However, it does not explain what enabling a service actually does in launchctl terms, which limits full purpose clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like bootstrap_service, kickstart_service, or enable's sibling disable_service. The description only states the mechanism, not the context or conditions under which enabling is appropriate. An agent must infer usage from the tool name and launchctl knowledge.

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