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 mentions that the path is discarded, which is a minor behavior, but it does not state whether the tool performs any side effects (e.g., network access), what it returns on success or failure, or whether it is read-only. For a parsing tool, one might assume no side effects, but that is not explicit. The schema hints that several parameters are 'discarded after the shape check', but the description does not consolidate this.

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. It front-loads the core action, which is good. However, the brevity comes at the cost of essential context (output, usage, parameter relevance). It is not verbose, but it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful for an agent.

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 the tool's complexity—9 optional parameters, no required ones, no output schema, and no annotations—the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, which parameters to provide, or how to handle the many unrelated schema fields. An agent cannot reliably call this tool based on the description alone; it would need to inspect the schema and guess. The description fails to bridge the gap between the stated purpose and the broad parameter set.

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?

The description adds no meaning to the parameters. The schema provides descriptions for all 9 parameters, but they are largely unrelated to Figma URLs (e.g., 'city', 'feed', 'json'). Only 'url' appears relevant, but the description does not specify that 'url' is the primary parameter or how the others factor in. With 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents each parameter, but the description fails to clarify the intended usage or which parameters are essential for this tool.

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 specific action: 'Parse a Figma file URL' and notes that the path is discarded. This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like 'browser-url-ok' (which checks URL availability) and 'normalize-url' (which normalizes URLs). However, it does not clarify what 'parse' returns (e.g., extracted components or a validity flag), leaving some ambiguity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools like 'domain-shape' and 'github-repo-shape' exist, but there is no indication of what makes this tool the right choice for a Figma URL specifically. The 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.