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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Path discarded', which hints at one behavior but does not explain what happens to the other parameters, what the tool returns, whether it has side effects, or what constitutes a valid Figma URL shape. This is almost completely opaque for a tool that appears to be a shape checker.

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, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It omits critical information that would justify its brevity. The 'Path discarded' clause is cryptic and does not earn its place without context.

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 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'parse' returns, how to interpret the shape check, or why the other parameters exist. An agent cannot safely invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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 each parameter has some text, but the descriptions are generic and many say 'discarded'. The description itself does not mention the 'url' parameter or indicate which of the 9 parameters is relevant to the Figma URL task. It adds no clarity beyond the schema, and the schema's own descriptions are unhelpful for distinguishing which input matters (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' is ambiguous).

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 verb ('Parse') and a resource ('Figma file URL'), which is a start, but it is extremely vague. It does not clarify what 'parse' means (validate, normalize, extract components?) or which input parameter is the intended target. The schema lists 9 unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, etc.) with no indication of how they relate to a Figma URL, so the agent cannot confidently infer the tool's actual scope. It also fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like 'normalize-url' or 'browser-url-ok'.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or when not to use it. Given the sibling tools for shape-checking various URL types, the agent is left to guess whether this applies to Figma URLs specifically or all URLs.

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