modx_migx_create_config

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that six fields must be JSON strings matching the manager's storage format, but it says nothing about required capability/permissions, duplicate-name behaviour, whether the config is published by default, or what is returned on success.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the highest-risk detail (JSON string encoding). Every clause earns its place; no filler or restatement of the tool name beyond the verb+resource.

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?

For a 12-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the single most error-prone aspect (that MIGX data must be pre-serialized JSON in manager format), which is genuinely valuable. It is nonetheless incomplete: five parameters remain unexplained and there is no statement of creation side effects, uniqueness constraints, or failure modes.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate, and it does partially: it names six parameters (formtabs, columns, contextmenus, actionbuttons, columnbuttons, filters) as JSON strings, which adds real meaning over the schema (which describes only columns and formtabs and leaves contextmenus/actionbuttons/columnbuttons/filters undocumented). However, it ignores extended, category, permissions, fieldpermissions and published, leaving roughly half the parameters with no semantic guidance anywhere.

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 MIGX configuration'), which is unambiguous and distinguishes it from modx_migx_update_config, modx_migx_get_config and modx_migx_list_configs by name. It does not explicitly say 'use this instead of update_config when the config does not exist', so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 when-to-use guidance: nothing says when to create versus update an existing MIGX config, and no prerequisites (permissions, whether the name must be unique) are given. The only contextual hint is the JSON-format note, which is about parameter shape, not tool selection.

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