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 only says 'Path discarded,' which reveals one behavior, but it does not explain what the parse returns, whether the URL is fetched/validated, how unrelated parameters are treated, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety signals.

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, front-loaded, and contains no filler; both sentences convey meaningful information. However, the terseness of 'Path discarded' is slightly cryptic and could be misread as referring to the path parameter rather than the URL path, so it is not perfectly structured.

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 9 parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too incomplete. It does not tell the agent which parameter to populate, what output shape to expect, or how the many unrelated schema properties should be handled. This makes correct invocation unnecessarily uncertain.

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 9 parameters are each already documented at least minimally. The description adds little beyond associating the tool with Figma URLs and mentioning path discarding, but it does not clarify which parameter should carry the Figma URL or why most schema fields are unrelated. A baseline 3 is appropriate given the full schema coverage.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Parse') and a specific resource ('a Figma file URL'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling shape/URL tools by naming the Figma-specific resource, even without explicitly naming an alternative.

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 the tool should be used when an agent encounters a Figma file URL, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It also does not mention alternatives like normalize-url or browser-url-ok, so usage context is only implied, not directly stated.

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