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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects, return value, validation behavior, and failure modes. It only mentions that the path is discarded, giving little insight into what the tool actually does beyond that.

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 only one sentence and avoids bloat, but it packs essential information too tightly and provides no structural breakdown. It is concise but not well-structured enough to compensate for the missing detail.

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 nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the output shape, error behavior, or how the many parameters are used, leaving substantial gaps for the agent.

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?

Although the schema has 100% description coverage, the parameter descriptions are generic and appear mismatched with the stated Figma URL purpose (e.g., 'url' says normalize/cite, and parameters like 'city' and 'feed' are unrelated). The description adds no clarification about which parameters apply or how they relate to parsing a 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 the tool's action ('Parse') and target ('Figma file URL'), making its primary purpose evident. It distinguishes this from more general URL tools by naming Figma specifically, though 'Path discarded' is slightly ambiguous.

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 guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as normalize-url or github-repo-shape, nor any mention of situations where it should not be used. The one-line description leaves the selection decision to inference.

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