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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals that the path is discarded; it does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, whether it makes network requests, or how invalid inputs are handled.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with no filler words. It is structurally efficient, though arguably too terse for a tool with nine parameters and no annotations.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, nine optional parameters, and many sibling tools, the description is far from complete. An agent would have to guess about return values, parameter selection, and behavior on invalid or non-Figma URLs.

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 Figma-specific meaning to the `url` parameter and confirms that `path` is ignored, but with nine optional parameters it does not clearly map which inputs are relevant or warn that most are discarded.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from generic URL tools like normalize-url or web-fetch. However, 'Path discarded' is ambiguous about whether it refers to the URL path or the path parameter, and it does not clarify whether the tool validates or extracts.

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 use for Figma file URLs, which provides some context for selection. But it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives among the many sibling URL and shape-checking tools.

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