nifi_update_parameter_context

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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description's job is to add beyond that. It does: it discloses the significant side effect that NiFi restarts referencing components itself, plus the two-call workflow needed to flip the sensitive flag. It does not mention permission requirements or that removal is irreversible in practice.

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 mutation verb set, and each sentence carries a distinct rule (action scope, restart side effect, name-collision and sensitivity constraints). No padding or restatement of the tool name.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description fills the remaining gaps an agent needs before mutating: what the tool changes, the restart side effect, and the two-call sensitivity constraint. The only omission is which parameter context is targeted, which the name and parameter_context_id field imply.

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?

The description adds a genuine cross-parameter constraint that the schema cannot express — that the same name may not appear in both parameters and remove — and explains the remove-then-re-add pattern for sensitivity changes. The per-field details (verbose, description, value) are left entirely to the schema, but the inter-parameter semantics are the valuable part and are present.

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 concrete verb set (add, change, remove) and resource (parameters), which is specific enough that an agent immediately knows this mutates parameter definitions. It stops short of naming the sibling tools (nifi_create_parameter_context, nifi_get_parameter_context) or explicitly stating the scope is a single parameter context, so sibling differentiation relies on the tool name alone.

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?

It supplies real invocation conditions — a name cannot appear in both parameters and remove, and changing a parameter's sensitivity requires a remove-then-add sequence across two calls. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over nifi_create_parameter_context or nifi_get_parameter_context, so the when-to-use story relative to alternatives is only implied.

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