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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only mentions that the path is discarded; it does not describe what parsing returns, how invalid URLs are handled, or whether any extraction or validation occurs. An agent cannot predict the tool's output or failure behavior from this text.

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 very short and front-loaded with the main purpose, with no filler words. However, it is under-specified for a tool with 9 optional parameters, and the sentence 'Path discarded' creates ambiguity rather than adding clear, necessary detail.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters, no required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description does not clarify which parameter should carry the Figma URL or what the parsed result will be. The schema descriptions provide per-parameter semantics, but tool-level completeness is missing, especially for a parse operation where return value is central.

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 description adds only the 'Path discarded' note, which may clarify handling of the URL path but is not clearly tied to a specific schema parameter. The individual parameter descriptions already cover each field's disposition.

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 the action and target: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' This distinguishes the tool from sibling URL-related tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok, at least by resource type. However, it does not explain what the parse result will be, and 'Path discarded' is ambiguous about whether it refers to the URL path or the 'path' parameter.

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 implies the tool should be used when a Figma file URL needs to be parsed, which provides some usage context. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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