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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Path discarded' exposes one behavior, but it does not state whether the URL is fetched, whether validation is syntactic only, what the return value is, or whether any side effects occur.

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 no filler or repeated schema content. 'Path discarded' is an informative addition, but the brevity leaves it under-explained for the surrounding context.

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?

Given nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too sparse to support a correct call. It does not specify which argument should carry the Figma URL, what to do with the other the inputs, or what the parse result looks like.

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 the baseline is 3 and the description is not required to restate parameter purposes. However, the description does not clarify how the nine optional parameters relate to 'a Figma file URL' or which parameters are relevant for a normal call.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Parse a Figma file URL') and adds a useful behavioral detail ('Path discarded'). This is enough to distinguish it from URL-normalization and fetch-status siblings, though the exact outcome of parsing is not stated.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool vs. normalize-url, browser-url-ok, fetch-status, or the other shape-check siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, so an agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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