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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the path is discarded, which is useful, but it does not state whether the tool returns a boolean, extracted components, a normalized URL, or an error on non-Figma URLs. The description is too thin to be behaviorally transparent.

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?

The description is exceptionally concise, with two short sentences and no filler. The core verb and resource come first, and the key caveat 'Path discarded' is immediately front-loaded. Every word 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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and nine optional parameters, the description is not complete enough for correct invocation. It does not explain what the tool returns, how it handles invalid or non-Figma URLs, or which of the nine schema fields is actually relevant. An agent would struggle to call it confidently.

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?

Although the schema has 100% description coverage, the schema descriptions are generic and poorly aligned with the tool purpose: 'url' is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' rather than as a Figma file URL, and eight other unrelated fields such as city, feed, json, zone, and query create ambiguity. The tool description provides no mapping from 'Figma file URL' to the specific parameter an agent should supply.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' The addition 'Path discarded' further distinguishes this from generic URL tools and sibling shape tools by hinting at a unique behavior. The Figma qualifier makes it easy to tell apart from github-repo-shape, jira-key-shape, and similar siblings.

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?

The description gives clear contextual usage: this tool is for Figma file URLs, not general URLs or other domains. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use cases, but the domain-specific phrasing is enough to route an agent among the sibling tools.

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