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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only adds 'Path discarded,' which is a minimal and ambiguous behavioral trait. It does not disclose what the tool returns, whether it validates URL format, whether it makes network calls, or what happens to the parsed data.

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. 'Parse a Figma file URL. Path discarded.' is efficient but perhaps too terse for the operational complexity implied by the 9-parameter schema and absent 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, 9 optional parameters, and many sibling tools, this description is far from complete. It leaves critical unknowns: what the tool returns, what constitutes a valid Figma URL, whether 'path' refers to the URL path or the input parameter, and how to distinguish this tool from normalize-url or browser-url-ok. This is only a minimal stub.

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 implies the 'url' parameter is the intended input by mentioning 'Figma file URL,' but it never explicitly says which parameter to use. The schema's 'url' description says 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite,' which is not Figma-specific, and the other eight optional parameters add noise rather than useful guidance.

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 it from generic URL tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok. However, it does not say what the parse produces, and the phrase 'Path discarded' is ambiguous about whether it refers to the URL path or the path parameter.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when it should not be used, despite many sibling tools with overlapping URL-related purposes. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and one-line description.

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