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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only discloses that the path is discarded. It does not state whether the tool returns a boolean, parsed components, or an error, and it does not address the many schema fields that appear unrelated to a Figma URL.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences with no filler. Both statements carry meaning, and the primary action is front-loaded before the behavioral caveat.

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 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is only seven words. It fails to explain return values, which parameter to supply, or what the unrelated schema fields (city, feed, json, path, zone, etc.) are doing in this tool.

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 even without parameter details in the description. The description does add that the URL should be a Figma file URL, but it does not clarify the role of the other eight parameters, which is a notable gap.

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 verb and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL,' which is enough to distinguish it from generic URL tools like normalize-url and browser-url-ok. The added note 'Path discarded' clarifies a key behavior, though the schema's unrelated parameters make the exact scope slightly blurry.

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 about when to use this tool versus siblings such as normalize-url, domain-shape, or file-path-ok. The description does not state any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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