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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only says 'Path discarded.' It doesn't state what the tool returns, whether it validates the URL's shape, or how it handles the other eight parameters in the schema. The mismatch between the tool name (Figma-specific) and the generic schema parameters adds confusion.

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 concise at one sentence, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks front-loaded key details like output or purpose. While brevity is good, it omits critical information.

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 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool does with the other parameters, what the output shape is, or any side effects. An agent would be lost on how to call it 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?

The schema describes all 9 parameters, but the description adds no value—it doesn't clarify which parameter is the Figma URL, nor does it explain the role of the other parameters. The schema's description for 'url' says 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite,' which conflicts with the tool's Figma focus. The description fails to bridge this gap.

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 resource (Figma file URL) and a verb (parse), but 'parse' is vague—it doesn't say whether it validates, extracts, or normalizes. It also doesn't distinguish itself from sibling URL tools like browser-url-ok or normalize-url. The phrase 'Path discarded' hints at a behavior but leaves the core purpose unclear.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of which sibling tools to prefer, nor any exclusions. An agent cannot decide whether to pick this over normalize-url or domain-shape based on the description.

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