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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that 'Path discarded,' but does not explain what parsing returns, whether the URL is validated, how invalid URLs are handled, or whether any other components are preserved. This is too thin for safe autonomous 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 highly concise and front-loaded with the main action: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' The second sentence 'Path discarded' is short but adds a behavioral note. No words are wasted, though the second sentence is terse enough to be 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 tool with nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It does not say which parameter to supply, what a valid Figma file URL looks like, what the parsed output contains, or how the path disposal affects the result. An agent would need to inspect the schema and infer heavily to use this tool correctly.

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 tool description does not add meaningful parameter-level detail, and it fails to explicitly identify which of the nine parameters should carry the Figma URL (presumably 'url'). The 'Path discarded' note may clarify the path parameter, but this is not clearly connected to the schema.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' This is enough to distinguish it from sibling URL/shape tools like github-repo-shape or normalize-url. The phrase 'Path discarded' is somewhat cryptic but does not obscure the main purpose.

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?

Usage context is only implied: an agent can infer this tool is for Figma file URLs because of the explicit resource mention. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to sibling tools such as normalize-url or browser-url-ok.

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