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

The description only says 'Parse' and 'Path discarded', giving minimal behavioral detail. With no annotations and no output schema, it fails to disclose what the tool returns, whether it has side effects, or how it handles invalid input.

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 contains no unnecessary words. However, the fragment 'Path discarded' is terse enough to hurt clarity, though the overall length is appropriate.

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 9-parameter schema, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is far too incomplete. It lacks information about return values, parameter relevance, error behavior, and how this tool differs from URL-related siblings.

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, most are clearly irrelevant to parsing a Figma file URL (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'City name for a public weather hint', 'IANA timezone name'). The url parameter description is generic and describes normalizing/citing rather than Figma-specific parsing, so the schema is highly misleading.

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 resource: parsing a Figma file URL. However, the extra phrase 'Path discarded' is ambiguous, and the input schema contains many unrelated parameters that make the intended purpose less 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 about when to use this tool versus siblings like normalize-url, domain-shape, or browser-url-ok. There is no mention of appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or conditions that would select this tool.

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