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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal one behavior ('Path discarded'), but it does not state whether parsing validates, normalizes, extracts components, or performs any network request. The return behavior and side effects are completely unspecified.

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 two very short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The fragment 'Path discarded' is compact but cryptic; nonetheless, every word earns its place. It is appropriately sized for a terse tool description.

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 9 optional parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this one-line description is far too thin. It does not say which parameter to pass, what the parsing result looks like, or how invalid input is handled. An agent cannot reliably determine how to invoke this tool correctly.

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 only that a Figma file URL is parsed and the path is discarded, which hints that `url` is the relevant input but does not clarify the role of the other 8 optional parameters. It does not compensate for the schema's generic, unrelated-looking parameter descriptions.

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 ('Parse') and resource ('a Figma file URL'), and adds a narrowing detail ('Path discarded'). The Figma-specific scope distinguishes it from generic URL siblings like normalize-url and web-fetch. It is not a tautology and gives more than the tool name.

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 when to use the tool: when you have a Figma file URL to parse. However, it provides no explicit alternatives or exclusion conditions. Among the URL-related siblings, it does not say why figma-url-shape should be chosen over normalize-url or browser-url-ok.

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