nifi_set_run_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond restating the state enum — it doesn't say whether stopping a processor discards in-flight FlowFiles, whether RUN_ONCE completes and reverts, or what a partial failure looks like for a mutation tool.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. Every clause earns its place by pinning down scope and the state domain.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and annotations cover idempotency and safety. However, for a state-transition mutation on a live data flow, the description omits operational consequences and error behavior, leaving it only minimally complete.

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% and the single param is a nested object whose two fields (component_id, state) are undocumented in the schema. The description compensates partially by naming the valid state values, but component_id's meaning (which component, format) is left entirely to inference.

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?

States a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('one processor') and enumerates the four target states, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It implicitly distinguishes itself from group-level siblings like nifi_schedule_process_group by scoping to 'one processor', but never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'one processor' scope and the state list, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus nifi_schedule_process_group (group-level) or nifi_set_controller_service_state (services). No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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