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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions that the path is discarded. It does not state whether the tool performs network access, validation, side-effect-free parsing, or what happens with invalid Figma URLs. This is insufficient transparency for safe invocation.

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 and front-loaded with the core action. There is no filler or redundant restatement. However, 'Path discarded' is a fragment and somewhat cryptic, reducing clarity despite the concise form.

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 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-line description is wholly inadequate. The description does not state which parameter to populate, what the return value looks like, or how this tool relates to the many sibling URL and shape-checking tools. An agent is unlikely to invoke this correctly without further assumptions.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, the tool description adds no useful parameter mapping. It does not clarify that 'url' is the intended Figma URL parameter, especially since there are nine optional parameters including city, feed, json, zone, and query, which are unrelated to Figma. The phrase 'Path discarded' merely echoes the path parameter description and does not help an agent select the correct input.

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.' This distinguishes it from generic URL tools like normalize-url and browser-url-ok. However, 'parse' is somewhat vague about whether it validates, extracts, or normalizes, and it only offers one behavioral detail: 'Path discarded.'

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like normalize-url, browser-url-ok, and github-repo-shape, an agent cannot reliably decide whether this is the right tool for URL shape validation, normalization, or something else. The description gives no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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