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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but it only says 'Path discarded.' It does not state whether the URL is fetched, validated, normalized, or what the return value is, nor does it explain the discard behavior for the other eight parameters.

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 two short sentences with no filler and front-loads the main action. However, 'Path discarded' is cryptic and, combined with the mismatched schema, brevity comes at the cost of 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?

For a 9-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is far too incomplete. It omits the return shape, which parameter(s) to send, whether non-URL inputs are valid, and how the unrelated schema properties relate to Figma URL parsing.

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 coverage is 100% and each property already has a description, so the baseline is met. The description adds no real parameter semantics beyond clarifying that the url is a Figma file URL, while the schema itself is generic (HTTPS URL to normalize or cite).

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 action and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL'. However, the input schema accepts nine unrelated strings (city, json, zone, query, etc.), so the stated scope conflicts with the actual tool signature and leaves the real purpose ambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool versus normalize-url, domain-shape, github-repo-shape, or other URL/shape siblings. The name implies Figma-only use, but the broad schema suggests a more general shape check, giving an agent conflicting selection signals.

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