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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only discloses 'Path discarded.' It does not state whether parsing is read-only, what happens with invalid Figma URLs, what fields are returned, or whether network access occurs. This is under-disclosed for a tool that needs to be invoked without additional context.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the main action is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise but slightly cryptic: 'Path discarded' is a fragment that could be clearer.

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 no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not define what a successful parse returns, what constitutes a valid Figma file URL, or how errors are reported. For a tool with a 9-parameter generic schema, this is under-specified, though the basic input domain is clear.

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; individual parameter descriptions already explain that ref, city, feed, json, zone, and query are discarded. However, the tool description adds only 'Path discarded' and does not explicitly say which of the nine optional parameters is the relevant input, leaving the url parameter to be inferred from the tool name.

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 the tool from generic URL siblings like normalize-url and from other shape checkers such as domain-shape or jira-key-shape. The note 'Path discarded' adds a scoping detail, though it is ambiguous about whether it refers to the URL path or the path input 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 phrase 'Parse a Figma file URL' implies the tool is for Figma URL inputs, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to sibling tools such as normalize-url or browser-url-ok. It is enough to infer context but not enough to choose confidently among URL-related siblings.

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