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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It does state one useful behavioral trait: the path is discarded. However, it does not reveal what the tool returns, how invalid URLs are handled, or whether any network interaction occurs, so transparency is only partial.

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, front-loaded sentences with no redundancy. Both 'Parse a Figma file URL' and 'Path discarded' carry useful information and earn their place.

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?

Despite a detailed input schema, the tool has no output schema, no annotations, and nine optional parameters. The description does not explain the return value, the practical relationship between 'url' and 'path', or when this tool should be preferred, leaving too much for the agent to infer.

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 only minimal meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying that the input is a Figma file URL and that the path is ignored; it does not add meaningful syntax or selection guidance for the nine parameters.

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, and it adds a distinguishing detail, 'Path discarded,' that separates it from generic URL/shape tools and sibling shape checkers. The scope 'Figma file URL' makes the intended target unmistakable.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or other shape checkers. 'Path discarded' is a behavioral hint, not a usage condition or exclusion.

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