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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the path is discarded, but does not explain what happens to the URL, whether it returns a boolean, modified URL, or error, or what other parameters do. This is a significant gap for a tool with 9 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 description is extremely brief (two short sentences), which is concise, but it is under-specified for the tool's complexity. It doesn't front-load critical information about the URL parameter or the tool's behavior. The brevity is a deficiency, not a virtue.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how to use the other parameters, or any error conditions. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based on this description alone.

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. The description adds no information about parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It doesn't clarify why parameters like city, feed, or json are relevant to parsing a Figma URL, leaving the parameter list confusing.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' It is specific about the resource type. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or normalize-url, and it leaves ambiguity about what 'parse' entails (validation, extraction, or normalization). The core purpose is clear but lacks differentiation.

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 versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or conditions that would select this tool over its many siblings. An agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient.

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