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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals one behavioral trait: the path is discarded. But it does not explain whether the tool validates, extracts, normalizes, or fetches anything, nor what happens with malformed URLs.

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-loads the key resource, which is good. However, 'Path discarded.' is a fragment, and the brevity crosses into under-specification rather than deliberate concise structure.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, and the tool has nine parameters. The description only says to parse a Figma file URL and discard the path, leaving the return value, validation behavior, and parameter relevance largely unexplained.

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 parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; 'Path discarded' at most reiterates the schema's note about the path parameter. With nine optional parameters, the intended relevant input is still somewhat ambiguous.

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 verb and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' This is not a tautology and clearly names the target input. However, it does not say what the parse produces or how this differs from sibling URL-parsing tools like normalize-url.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or github-repo-shape. The only contextual hint is 'Figma file URL,' but no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection conditions are provided.

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