nifi_update_processor

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world). The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: partial update semantics ("sends only the fields you set"), the STOPPED requirement, and the collision-resolution rule where an overlapping move is shifted down and reported in the result. That is substantive context beyond the structured fields.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the precondition, then an edge-case behavior. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema 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 covers the mutation preconditions and an edge case. It leaves open what the verbosity/precondition interaction looks like on failure and doesn't document several accepted fields, a minor gap for a mutation tool.

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% for the nested payload, so the description has to compensate, and it does: it names the four changeable aspects (properties, name, schedule, position) and clarifies partial-update behavior. It omits comments, auto_terminated and verbose, which remain undocumented, so it is not fully compensating.

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 opens with a specific verb ("Change") and resource ("processor") and enumerates the mutable surface: properties, name, schedule, position. That clearly separates it from nifi_create_processor, nifi_get_processor and nifi_delete_component, though no sibling is named 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?

It states a concrete precondition: property, name and schedule changes require the processor to be STOPPED, while a position-only move does not. That is real when-to-use guidance, but it never points to the sibling that stops the processor (e.g. nifi_set_run_status) or says what happens if the precondition is violated.

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