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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the path is discarded; it does not say whether the URL is validated, normalized, or what the result of the parse looks like, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. The 'Path discarded' fragment is efficient but could be clearer, so it does not quite earn a 5.

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?

With nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a six-word description is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool correctly. It does not explain the expected return value, which parameters are relevant to a Figma URL parse, or how the many unrelated parameters should be treated.

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 schema already documents all nine parameters. The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema, and the ambiguous 'Path discarded' does not clarify which parameter is actually used or ignored.

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 and resource ('Parse a Figma file URL.'), which clearly identifies the tool's target and differentiates it from siblings like normalize-url or browser-url-ok. However, the appended 'Path discarded' is ambiguous—it could refer to the URL path or the `path` parameter—which slightly muddies an otherwise clear 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?

The description implies the tool is for Figma file URLs, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It does not name alternatives or explain when another URL-handling sibling would be more appropriate, so an agent must rely mostly on the tool name and context.

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