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

No annotations are present, and the description gives only the terse behavioral hint 'Path discarded' without explaining side effects, return value, or error behavior. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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 one-sentence description is extremely concise, but it omits critical information about parameters and output. Brevity is achieved at the expense of usefulness, so it is not well balanced.

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 and no explanation of how the nine heterogeneous parameters are used, an agent cannot reliably predict the tool's behavior or response. The description is far too incomplete for the tool's apparent complexity.

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?

Although every parameter has a schema description, those descriptions are generic boilerplate (e.g., 'City name for a public weather hint') and do not relate to parsing a Figma URL. The description adds no clarifying semantics for how these nine heterogeneous parameters are used.

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?

Clearly states it parses a Figma file URL and discards the path, distinguishing it from normalize-url or browser-url-ok by resource. However, it does not describe what 'shape' the output takes, leaving some ambiguity.

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 on when to use this tool instead of sibling tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok. The name implies a shape-checking role, but the description does not make the selection criteria explicit.

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