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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Parse' suggests a read-only, non-destructive operation, and 'Path discarded' at least signals that one input is ignored after the check. But it does not clarify whether any network access occurs, what is returned, or whether there are side effects, leaving notable ambiguity.

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 short and front-loads the main purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence, 'Path discarded,' is concise but cryptic, and could confuse an agent about which path is meant. Still, no words are wasted and the structure is simple.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, nine optional parameters, and no required fields, the description is not sufficient for confident invocation. It does not state which parameter should carry the Figma URL, what the shape-check output looks like, or how this tool fits among the many sibling utilities. The agent would likely need to open the schema and infer behavior from the generic parameter descriptions.

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 schema already documents all nine parameters. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the mention that the path is discarded, which the schema already states for the path parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Parse') and a clear resource ('Figma file URL'), and the tool name reinforces the domain, distinguishing it from siblings like normalize-url or github-repo-shape. It is slightly ambiguous what 'Parse' produces and whether 'Path discarded' refers to a URL component or an input parameter, but the core purpose is identifiable.

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 usage is for Figma file URLs, which is a reasonable trigger for an agent. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of sibling URL-related tools like normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or playwright-url-ok, nor any exclusions.

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