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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals only that the path is discarded, but not whether the tool validates, extracts, or returns a boolean; nor does it mention side effects or requirements. The lack of output schema makes the behavior even more opaque.

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 short, which is concise, but the cryptic sentence 'Path discarded.' is not well-structured or sufficiently informative. It front-loads the main action but leaves key aspects ambiguous.

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?

For a 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this definition is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain the return value, which parameter to provide, or the criteria for a valid Figma URL. An agent would be guessing when selecting and invoking this 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the descriptions are generic and not tied to Figma; the `url` param is described as 'normalize or cite' rather than shape-checking. The description doesn't say which of the 9 parameters is relevant, and 'Path discarded' could be misread as the `path` param rather than the URL path. The schema alone doesn't resolve the ambiguity.

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 and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' However, it doesn't clarify what 'shape' means or what the tool returns, and the added note 'Path discarded' is ambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling URL tools, though the Figma-specific resource helps.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over siblings like normalize-url or browser-url-ok. The description doesn't state the intended input domain or any alternative/fallback conditions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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