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

The only disclosed behavior is that the path is discarded. No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, but it fails to state whether this is a read-only check, whether network access occurs, or what happens with invalid URLs. The return value is also unspecified.

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 brief, with no filler, and the main action is front-loaded. 'Path discarded' is a deliberate second sentence adding behavioral clarity. However, the brevity veers into under-specification, and the phrase 'Path' is 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?

Despite a rich 9-parameter schema and no output schema or annotations, the description gives no indication which parameter is the Figma URL or what the tool returns. 'Path discarded' may refer to the path parameter or the URL path components, but this is not clarified. The description is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not reference any parameter, and the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' for url) are generic and not tailored to Figma, leaving potential confusion about which field to populate. However, since the schema technically documents all parameters, the description adds no further value, matching the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb ('Parse') and resource ('Figma file URL'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling validators like github-repo-shape. However, it does not explain what 'parse' produces (e.g., validation result vs extracted parts), and 'Path discarded' is ambiguous. Still, the core purpose is unmistakable.

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 on when to use this tool versus sibling validators such as domain-shape or wiki-title-ok. There are no exclusions, alternative suggestions, or contextual triggers. An agent must infer usage solely from the tool name.

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