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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that this is a parse operation and that something is discarded, but it does not state what the tool returns, whether it performs validation, how failures are signaled, or whether any side effects exist. This is insufficient for an unannotated tool.

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 very short and front-loaded with its main purpose, which is good. However, 'Path discarded' is cryptic and structurally abrupt, leaving the agent to guess its meaning. It is concise but 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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a broad nine-parameter input schema. The description does not clarify which parameter carries the Figma URL, what constitutes a valid Figma URL, or what the parse result looks like. This makes it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 adds no parameter mapping benefit: the schema's 'url' description is generic ('HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') rather than Figma-specific, and 'Path discarded' merely echoes the schema's note that path is discarded after the check. The agent still has to infer which of the nine fields is the Figma URL.

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 clearly states a specific action and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' This distinguishes it from generic URL tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling shape-check tools. The second sentence 'Path discarded' is ambiguous—it could mean the URL's path or the schema's path 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 tool name and description imply it should be used for Figma URL parsing, which provides contextual selection guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instruction, and no alternatives such as browser-url-ok or github-repo-shape are mentioned.

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