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

With no annotations, the description itself is the only source of behavioral information. It mentions that the path is discarded but does not explain side effects, read-only guarantees, error behavior, or what happens with non-Figma URLs.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core action, containing no fluff or redundant phrasing. The brevity is beneficial, though it sacrifices clarity in the ambiguous 'Path discarded' phrase.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description gives no indication of the return value or how the nine parameters should be combined. The tool is not self-contained enough for an agent to use confidently without additional external knowledge.

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?

The schema descriptions are generic and largely disconnected from parsing a Figma file URL; parameters like 'city', 'feed', 'zone', and 'json' appear irrelevant based on the tool's stated purpose. The descriptions do not help an agent understand which parameters are meaningful or how they relate to the URL parsing operation.

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 action and object ('Parse a Figma file URL') but does not clarify what 'Path discarded' means or what the tool actually returns. The purpose remains ambiguous for an agent trying to decide whether to call it.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or other URL-related siblings. The description provides no context about expected inputs, use cases, or conditions that would make this tool appropriate.

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