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

With no annotations, the description is solely responsible for revealing behavior; it does disclose one behavior ('Path discarded') but does not explain what 'parse' returns, what validation criteria define a valid Figma URL, how failures are reported, or whether any network request occurs. That is some context, but far from sufficient.

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?

Two terse sentences with no filler; the main action is front-loaded. 'Path discarded' earns some place as a behavioral note, but its ambiguity prevents this from being an exemplary concise definition.

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 nine optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a large family of sibling tools, a two-sentence description is not enough. It omits the required parameter mapping, return shape, validation semantics, and differentiation from other URL tools, so correct invocation is not reliably achievable.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description never names the relevant parameter, and none of the parameter descriptions mention Figma. The only plausible parameter, 'url', is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite,' which conflicts with the Figma-specific intent; with nine optional parameters, an agent cannot confidently determine what to pass.

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 names a specific action ('Parse') and resource ('a Figma file URL'), so the core purpose is identifiable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling URL/shape tools such as normalize-url or browser-url-ok, and 'Path discarded' is ambiguous enough to blur the exact scope.

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 wording implies the tool is appropriate when an agent encounters a Figma file URL, which gives weak usage context. It provides no when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives, so an agent must infer the boundary with sibling tools.

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