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

Annotations are absent, so the description alone must carry behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the path is discarded, but it says nothing about return values, error behavior, or whether any of the other eight schema parameters are meaningful to this tool. That is a partial disclosure, not full transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded: two sentences, no filler, and both sentences contribute meaning. It is not verbose, though 'Path discarded' is cryptic enough that the brevity costs clarity.

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 nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse to be complete. It does not state what the parse result contains, which parameter to supply, or how this tool differs from related shape/URL tools, so an agent cannot reliably invoke or evaluate the response.

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, all nine parameters are optional and the description never maps 'Figma file URL' to the `url` parameter or explains the purpose of the unrelated parameters. The schema's `url` description ('normalize or cite') also diverges from the stated parse behavior, leaving an agent to guess how to invoke the tool.

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 states a concrete action ('Parse') and a specific resource ('a Figma file URL'), which matches the tool name and separates it from generic URL tools such as normalize-url or browser-url-ok. The additional 'Path discarded' behavior further clarifies scope.

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 explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of sibling alternatives, but 'Parse a Figma file URL' implies the tool should be selected when a Figma URL needs parsing. Without exclusions or alternative routing, the usage guidance is only minimally adequate.

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