aem_configuration_unbind

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 states the action but not the consequences, such as whether the unbind is reversible, whether it triggers a bundle restart, whether it affects existing configuration data, or what permissions are needed. This is a meaningful 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately concise, though slightly terse given the complexity of the operation and the number of parameters.

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?

Despite full schema coverage, the description lacks important context about the unbinding behavior, its effect on the bundle or configuration, and the role of optional parameters like bundleLocation, aliases, and instances. Without annotations or an output schema, the description alone is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool in complex scenarios.

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%, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 applies because the parameter documentation is complete in the schema, but the description doesn't enrich parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb ('Unbind') and resource ('OSGi configuration from a bundle'), clearly identifying the operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling configuration operations like delete or update, though it does not explicitly name them or highlight the distinction.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as aem_configuration_delete or aem_configuration_update. The description only states the operation itself, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name and sibling list.

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