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 mentions 'Path discarded' and several parameter descriptions say 'discarded', but the description does not explain side effects, validation behavior, return values, or what the tool actually does with the provided parameters.

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 text is very short and front-loaded with a verb, but it omits essential behavioral information and ends with an ambiguous fragment. A concise description should still clarify the tool's core function, which this one fails to do.

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 a description that does not explain the purpose of nine optional parameters, the tool is far from contextually complete. The description does not mention return format, validation criteria, or how the Figma URL should be shaped, leaving an agent unable to confidently invoke it.

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?

All nine parameters have descriptions, which gives high schema coverage, but many descriptions are unrelated to Figma URL parsing and repeatedly say values are 'discarded', which adds confusion rather than semantic clarity. The incoherence between the tool name and the parameter set prevents a higher score.

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 an action and object ('Parse a Figma file URL'), but the input schema contains numerous unrelated parameters (city, feed, zone, query) and the phrase 'Path discarded' is ambiguous—it could refer to the URL path or the separate 'path' parameter. The mismatch between the stated purpose and the actual schema makes the tool's purpose unclear.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, how it relates to sibling tools such as normalize-url or domain-shape, or what conditions warrant calling it. No examples, prerequisites, or alternative-selection criteria are given.

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