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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'Path discarded' and gives no indication of what the tool actually does with the URL (e.g., validates format, extracts components) or how it handles the other eight parameters, many of which appear unrelated to Figma. This lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap for a tool with no safety hints.

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 extremely short (one sentence), which is efficient, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. It omits essential behavioral information, so the brevity works against clarity.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and only a two-word explanation of behavior, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot determine what inputs are valid, what the tool returns, or how it differs from similar shape-checking tools, making it nearly impossible to use correctly.

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 parameter descriptions conflict with the stated purpose. For instance, 'city' is described as a 'public weather hint' and 'feed' as an 'RSS or Atom URL', neither of which relates to parsing a Figma URL. The description adds no extra meaning about how these parameters interact with the tool's core function, so it fails to clarify their role.

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 clarifies that the path is discarded. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling shape-checkers like 'browser-url-ok' or 'normalize-url', and the schema parameters suggest it may handle many input types (city, feed, json, etc.), making the stated purpose ambiguous.

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 the many sibling tools that perform similar shape checks (e.g., domain-shape, file-path-ok, github-repo-shape). No conditions or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to guess which tool fits a given input.

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