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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that parsing happens and that a path is discarded, but it does not disclose return behavior, validation behavior, network/read-only status, or any input constraints beyond those mentioned. This is insufficient for a tool with 9 optional 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 very short and front-loaded: the intended operation is stated in the first phrase, and the next phrase adds a behavioral limitation. No filler or redundant material is present.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not complete enough. It does not specify which inputs are relevant, what the tool returns, what constitutes a valid Figma URL, or how the "discarded" path affects the result. The schema covers the parameters mechanically, but the description does not synthesize them into a callable contract.

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 schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is a 3. The description adds "Path discarded," which may clarify the treatment of the path component/property, but it does not meaningfully explain how the 9 unrelated-looking parameters map to the Figma URL purpose. The description does not add substantial value beyond the schema.

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 resource and action: "Parse a Figma file URL." This is enough to tell it apart from sibling URL tools and shape-checkers, though the second clause "Path discarded" is terse and a bit ambiguous. It does not fall into tautology or generic phrasing.

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 implies the tool should be used when an agent needs to parse a Figma file URL, which is useful context. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it relates to siblings like normalize-url or browser-url-ok. The usage rule is implied rather than explicitly defined.

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