resolve_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the return values (fileKey, nodeId) and that the operation is a pure parse of a URL. It says nothing about failure behavior for malformed or non-Figma links, or whether both keys are always present.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the outputs last; nothing is wasted and nothing needs to be re-read.

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 one-parameter parsing tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient because it names the two return fields, which the schema cannot. Only the error/edge-case behavior for unusable links is left unaddressed.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Ссылка на файл или фрейм Figma'), so the schema already defines it fully. The description adds no accepted URL formats or examples beyond what the schema states, which is the baseline-3 case.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Разбирает ссылку Figma на фрейм/файл' and names the concrete outputs (fileKey, nodeId). This clearly separates it from the sibling node-mutation tools, though it does not name an explicit 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 phrase 'для использования в других инструментах' implies this is a preparatory step whose outputs feed other calls, which gives some when-to-use context. It never states exclusions, prerequisites, or what to do if the link points to a non-frame resource.

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