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

The only disclosed behavior is 'Path discarded', which is a minimal implementation detail. With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden for telling the agent about side effects, read-only posture, network access, or output format; it provides none of that.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by a precise caveat. There is no filler or redundancy, though the brevity also contributes to the lack of completeness.

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?

As a 9-parameter optional-side tool with no annotations and no output schema, a two-sentence description is radically insufficient. The agent cannot audit which parameter is the Figma URL, whether the other 8 are ignored, or what the tool returns, so the description is not complete enough to support correct 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3: the description does add slight meaning by tying the tool to a 'Figma file URL' and saying the path is discarded, which narrows the 'url' parameter. However, the 9-parameter schema is broad and the description gives no hint about how these parameters interact or which one should be provided.

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 explicitly identifies the resource as 'Figma file URL' and the action as 'Parse', with 'Path discarded' further scoping the behavior. This distinguishes it from sibling shape tools such as domain-shape or wiki-title-ok, though it remains short about what the parse result actually is.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative tools are mentioned. The intended usage is only implied by the resource name ('Figma file URL'), leaving the agent to infer when this tool should be picked over normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or other URL-related tools.

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