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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses one meaningful trait: the path is discarded. However, it does not describe the return value, validation behavior, or how other URL components are handled, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 two short sentences with no filler, and the main action is front-loaded. The path-discard note is a meaningful behavioral detail that earns its place.

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 9 optional parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must compensate. It identifies the resource type and one discarded component, but it does not explain what a successful parse returns or which parameter should carry the Figma URL, leaving too much to inference.

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 useful hint that the relevant URL is a Figma file URL, narrowing the generic 'url' parameter. But it does not explicitly name which parameter to populate, and 'Path discarded' could be confused with the schema's 'path' property.

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 and resource ('Parse a Figma file URL') that distinguishes this tool from siblings like github-repo-shape and jira-key-shape. It does not explicitly explain what the parse result means, and 'Path discarded' is terse, but the core intent 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 use when the agent has a Figma file URL, and the tool name reinforces that. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so the usage guidance is only implicit rather than explicit.

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