Updates existing OSGi configurations on specified AEM instances by applying new property values.
Update an existing OSGi configuration
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pid | Yes | Configuration PID | |
| aliases | No | Array of instance aliases | |
| instances | No | Array of AEM instances | |
| factoryPid | No | Factory PID for factory configurations | |
| properties | Yes | Configuration properties | |
| bundleLocation | No | Bundle location |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.3Does 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, but it only conveys the mutation itself. It fails to state whether the provided 'properties' replace or merge with existing values, whether credentials on target instances are required, how factory configurations behave, or what side effects the update triggers.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and zero filler words. It is appropriately compact for the message it carries, though it could earn a 5 by folding in the missing behavioral context.
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 6 parameters, nested credential objects, two targeting mechanisms, and no annotations or output schema, yet the description conveys only the bare operation. Critical details — merge vs replace behavior, factory configuration handling, targeting mechanics, and authentication expectations — are absent.
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 each of the 6 parameters has at least a minimal schema description, meeting the baseline of 3. However, the tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, and the schema's terse labels leave key semantics unexplained, such as what the 'properties' object should contain or how 'aliases' vs 'instances' targeting works.
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 names a specific verb ('Update') and a specific resource ('existing OSGi configuration'), which is clearly scoped to AEM's OSGi config system. The qualifier 'existing' distinguishes it from sibling aem_configuration_create and aem_configuration_delete, though it does not explicitly name them.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create, delete, get, or unbind. The word 'existing' implies the configuration must already be present, but there is no explicit context, precondition, or exclusion information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.