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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the full disclosure burden. It reveals one useful trait ('Path discarded') but leaves unclear whether the tool is read-only, makes network calls, how it handles malformed URLs, and what it returns. The note is also ambiguous: it could refer to the URL path or the schema's `path` parameter.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the key constraint is placed first. Still, the second sentence is cryptic enough that a few more words (e.g., 'the URL path component is ignored') would improve clarity without sacrificing conciseness.

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 annotations and no output schema, this description must carry more context, but it only covers the input resource and one discard behavior. It omits return semantics, relevant parameters among nine optional fields, and error behavior, leaving the agent under-equipped to invoke it confidently.

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, and the description does add Figma-specific meaning to the generic `url` parameter. It does not, however, clarify which of the nine optional parameters are relevant or how 'Path discarded' relates to the `path` property, so no bonus above baseline.

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 concrete action ('Parse') on a specific resource ('Figma file URL'), which helps distinguish it from sibling shape tools like github-repo-shape. However, 'parse' does not specify whether the result is a validation boolean, extracted keys, or a normalized URL, so the purpose is clear but not fully specified.

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 given about when to choose this tool over URL-related siblings like normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or web-fetch. The only implied usage is 'when you have a Figma URL,' with no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative selection criteria.

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