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

With annotations absent, the description carries the full disclosure burden but only states that the path is discarded. It does not explain what parsing produces, how invalid URLs are handled, whether the tool performs network access, or that the other eight schema fields are ignored. This is minimal behavioral context for a tool with no output schema.

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 core purpose in the first sentence. The second fragment, 'Path discarded,' earns some place but is ambiguous. For a tool with nine optional parameters and no output schema, the brevity leaves important context out.

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 schema has 9 optional parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description needs to provide a clear invocation pattern. It only names the operation and one discarded input, leaving the agent unsure which parameter to populate and what the tool returns. This is insufficient for reliable use.

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 the Figma-specific domain that the schema's generic `url` description lacks. It also maps the `path` parameter to 'discarded.' However, it does not explicitly tell the agent to put the Figma URL in `url`, and the roles of the remaining optional parameters are left unexplained.

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 identifies a concrete action and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' The Figma-specific scope separates it from generic URL tools like `normalize-url` or `browser-url-ok`. However, 'parse' is not expanded with output/shape semantics, and the phrase 'Path discarded' is cryptic.

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 select this tool over alternatives such as `normalize-url`, `browser-url-ok`, or the other `*-shape` validators. The only usage hint, 'Path discarded,' explains one input behavior rather than a decision rule. An agent must infer that the `url` parameter should be a Figma file URL.

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