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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It states that the path is discarded, which is a behavioral detail, but it omits any mention of side effects (e.g., network access, read-only nature), what happens to other parts of the URL, or whether the tool returns a result. Given the parameter list includes many unrelated fields (city, feed, host, etc.) that are said to be discarded, the description is not transparent about the overall behavior beyond the path.

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 concise sentence of seven words, with no wasted text. It front-loads the core action ('Parse a Figma file URL') and immediately adds the key constraint ('Path discarded'). This is efficient and easy to scan.

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 tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides almost no context for how to invoke it correctly: it does not indicate which parameter is the URL to parse, how the other parameters relate to the operation, what the tool returns, or any error conditions. The mismatch between the narrow Figma-URL focus and the broad, unrelated parameter set is confusing and leaves the agent without sufficient guidance.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with each parameter individually described, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning to these parameters, nor does it clarify which parameters are relevant to the Figma URL parsing. With complete schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not degrade or enhance parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb ('Parse') and resource ('Figma file URL'), and notes the path is discarded. This clearly identifies the tool's core function and differentiates it from siblings like 'normalize-url' or 'domain-shape' which target different URL concerns. However, it does not specify what the tool returns or whether it validates, so the exact purpose is slightly under-specified.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among the sibling tools, several handle URLs (e.g., 'normalize-url', 'browser-url-ok', 'domain-shape'), but the description does not mention when a Figma-specific parse is appropriate or when to prefer another tool. The context is implicit only through the tool name and the mention of Figma.

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