parseFigmaUrl

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

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the extraction output (fileKey, nodeId) but omits error handling behavior, input validation, or the fact that the schema also accepts a bare fileKey rather than a full URL, which could be surprising to the agent.

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?

One sentence with no filler words; front-loads the action and outputs. Every word earns its place.

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 utility, the description is adequate but leaves out the tool's role in the broader workflow (e.g., feeding fileKey to other Figma tools). Since there is no output schema, a brief note about the returned shape would improve completeness.

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 documents the single parameter with 100% coverage, including the fact that it accepts 'Figma URL or fileKey'. The description adds no additional format details, so the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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' with a clear resource 'Figma URL' and names the output variables 'fileKey and nodeId', making its purpose distinct from sibling tools that operate on frames or styles.

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 description implies the tool's use case but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives, such as when needing to convert a URL before calling frame-related tools. Sibling tools like getFigmaFrame might use this internally, but the description doesn't mention prerequisites.

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