aem_configuration_create

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 only restates the mutation implied by the tool name and does not reveal what happens if the PID already exists, whether the operation is destructive, or how authentication is handled through the instances array.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and easy to parse, though it does not provide enough depth for a tool with six parameters and nested objects.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a complex input schema containing nested objects, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what properties should look like, the role of aliases and instances, or what a successful creation returns, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 all six parameters already have minimal descriptions such as 'Configuration PID' and 'Factory PID for factory configurations'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is present in the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 verb and resource: 'Create a new OSGi configuration'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools such as aem_configuration_list, get, update, delete, and unbind.

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 on when to use create versus update, or when factoryPid should be supplied. The description does not mention any prerequisites or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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