nifi_set_controller_service_state

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

Annotations already declare idempotent=true and destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that by disclosing the prerequisite that referencing processors must be stopped before disabling, which affects whether a call will succeed.

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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the constraint immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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 annotations carrying the safety profile and an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It covers the action and the key constraint adequately, though it could note the distinction from nifi_update_controller_service, which handles property changes rather than state.

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 0%, so the schema contributes nothing beyond titles. The description's enable/disable framing maps loosely onto the ENABLED/DISABLED enum, but it says nothing about the service_id or the nested params wrapper, leaving a gap that the self-explanatory enum partially offsets.

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 pair and resource — 'Enable or disable a controller service' — which immediately tells an agent this is a state toggle rather than a configuration change. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nifi_update_controller_service, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Referencing processors must be stopped to disable' gives a concrete operational precondition for the disable path, which is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when-not-to-use, so it is not a full 5.

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