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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only discloses that the path is discarded, but says nothing about the return format, side effects, permissions, or whether it is a read-only operation. This is a significant gap for a tool that may mutate or fetch external resources.

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 a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded, but it is under-specified. It lacks structure and does not provide enough information to be genuinely useful. Conciseness is not a substitute for completeness.

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 severely incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's overall behavior, how parameters relate to the Figma URL parsing, or what the expected result is. An agent cannot reliably call this tool based on the given information.

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 schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no parameter context. Moreover, the schema parameters (city, feed, json, zone, etc.) appear unrelated to the stated purpose of parsing a Figma URL, creating confusion about which parameters are relevant and how they are used. The description does not compensate for this mismatch.

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 ('Figma file URL'), and adds that the path is discarded. However, it does not explain what parsing entails, what the output is, or how it differs from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or normalize-url. It is not a tautology, but it lacks sufficient detail to clearly distinguish it.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. An agent would have no basis to decide between this and other 'shape' tools.

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