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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses one useful trait—'Path discarded'—but it does not state what the parsed result looks like, whether only Figma HTTPS URLs are accepted, or that the other eight schema parameters are effectively irrelevant to this tool.

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 concise and front-loaded, with no filler: it states the action in the first sentence and the key behavioral wrinkle in the second. It loses a point because 'Path discarded' is elliptical and could mislead an agent.

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 never tells the agent which parameter to supply, what the parsed output is, or how a non-Figma URL should be handled. The definition leaves too much to inference for reliable invocation.

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 only the ambiguous phrase 'Path discarded,' which could refer either to the URL path or to the 'path' parameter, so it does not meaningfully improve on the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 verb and resource: parse a Figma file URL, and adds the behavioral note that the path is discarded. It is clear about the core intent, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling URL/shape tools such as normalize-url or domain-shape.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list contains several similar URL-parsing or URL-checking tools, yet the description offers no selection criteria, exclusions, or context about which URL shapes belong here.

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