aem_component_enable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool mutates component state by enabling it, but it does not mention side effects, reversibility, permissions, idempotency, or what happens if the component is already enabled.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary verb and resource, making the tool's core purpose immediately clear.

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 too spare for a state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema. It omits how to choose between aliases and instances, what a successful enable looks like, and any operational caveats, leaving an agent to infer critical invocation details.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter at a basic level. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond indicating that componentName is the lookup key, but it does not clarify the relationship or selection logic between aliases and instances.

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 ('Enable') on a specific resource ('OSGi components') and the key input ('by component name'). It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like aem_component_disable and aem_component_list.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as aem_component_disable or aem_component_details. The description implies the use case through the verb 'Enable,' but it does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions for choosing between target options.

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