nifi_update_controller_service

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds non-obvious behavioral constraints beyond them: partial-update semantics ('sends only the fields you set'), the disabled-state requirement, and that processor references survive the update. That is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the operational constraint. No filler, no repetition of the name or annotations.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description fully covers the workflow an agent needs to execute the update correctly (disable, update, re-enable, references preserved). Nothing material is missing.

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?

Top-level schema description coverage is 0%, though the nested properties/verbose fields carry their own descriptions. The description compensates with the key semantic ('sends only the fields you set'), but omits that null removes a property and says nothing about service_id or the verbose toggle.

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+resource+scope: 'Change a controller service's properties or name in place.' This clearly separates it from nifi_create_controller_service (creation), nifi_get_controller_service (read), and nifi_set_controller_service_state (state toggling). An agent can select it without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the prerequisite sequence and the sibling tool: disable via nifi_set_controller_service_state, stop referencing processors first, update, then re-enable. This is a when-to-use and a when-not-to-use (cannot update an enabled service) in one compact block.

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