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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only says 'Path discarded,' which gives one behavioral detail but does not disclose whether the tool makes network calls, whether it is read-only, whether it actually validates the Figma URL, or what is returned. This is too thin for a standalone URL-related 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?

Two sentences, no wasted words, and the key action and behavioral note are front-loaded. It is under-specified in content but not lacking in verbal economy.

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 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should clarify which parameter is the Figma URL and what the tool returns. It only says 'Parse a Figma file URL. Path discarded,' which leaves the agent guessing about output format and how this shape check fits into the URL pipeline.

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 each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds almost no parameter-level meaning besides the path/discard hint, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema is doing the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific action (parse) and resource (Figma file URL), and even adds a behavior detail (path discarded). This is enough to distinguish it from generic URL tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok, though it does not state the return value or whether it validates the URL.

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?

Use is implied for Figma file URLs, and 'Path discarded' hints that the path component is not meaningful. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over sibling tools such as normalize-url or browser-url-ok, and there are no when-not notes.

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