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

The description suggests a read-only parsing operation and notes one discarded aspect, but it does not disclose output, error behavior, side effects, or any restrictions; the missing annotations increase the burden on the description.

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 text is short and straightforward, but it is too terse: 'Path discarded' is cryptic and the description lacks enough structure to support the tool's actual parameters.

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?

The tool has no output schema, no usage context, and no explanation of how the three-line description relates to the nine optional parameters; an agent cannot reliably infer expected inputs or return values.

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?

Although every parameter has a description, the parameters appear unrelated to parsing Figma file URLs (e.g., city, feed, zone, query) and descriptions like 'discarded after the shape check' do not clarify their role in 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 names a specific action and object ('Parse a Figma file URL'), but the phrase 'Path discarded' is ambiguous and the input schema lists many unrelated optional fields, so the actual purpose is not fully clear.

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 for when to use this tool rather than sibling URL/shape tools, and there are no conditions, prerequisites, or examples to select it appropriately.

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