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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that the path is discarded; it does not explain whether the URL is validated, what components are extracted, error behavior, or side effects. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely compact and front-loaded with the key action, and the second sentence adds a behavioral note without repeating the tool name. It loses one point because 'Path discarded' is terse to the point of being cryptic.

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 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not enough to invoke the tool correctly. It does not state expected output, what a valid Figma URL looks like, or which parameter to populate.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The schema gives each parameter a type and description, and the description adds the Figma-URL context, but it never maps the purpose to a specific parameter (likely 'url') or clarifies why the other eight optional parameters 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 specific verb ('Parse') and resource ('Figma file URL'), so an agent can tell it is a Figma URL recognizer and distinguish it from sibling shape tools like github-repo-shape. However, 'Path discarded' is ambiguous and the description does not state what the parse produces, so it stops just short of a fully clear purpose.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives mentioned, and no exclusions. The description only implies usage for Figma file URLs; with 28 siblings, it does not help an agent choose between this and normalize-url or browser-url-ok.

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