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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Path discarded' reveals one transformation, but side effects, validation behavior, failure modes, and the return value are all unstated. For a parse/shape tool this may be a safe local operation, but the description does not confirm 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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded. The second sentence, 'Path discarded,' earns its place as a behavioral detail but is cryptically brief and could have been clarified without adding much length.

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 nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, but the description is only eight words long. It does not explain what the tool returns, which parameter must be supplied, or how it handles invalid Figma URLs, so an agent cannot confidently invoke it correctly.

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 a helpful hint that the URL should be a Figma file URL, but it never identifies which of the nine optional parameters is the relevant one, leaving ambiguity with unrelated fields like ref, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, and query.

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 action and resource: parse a Figma file URL. This distinguishes it from generic URL tools like normalize-url or fetch-status. However, 'parse' is not fully defined and 'Path discarded' is more of a behavioral note than a purpose statement, so it stops short of a 5.

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 resource is specific enough to imply when to use the tool: when given a Figma file URL. But no explicit when-not guidance or alternatives are provided, and sibling URL-related tools like browser-url-ok, normalize-url, and web-fetch could overlap for URL handling.

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