parse_figma_url

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool extracts specific fields from the URL but does not discuss invalid URL handling or return structure. This is adequate but not rich behavioral detail.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and extracted outputs, followed by a clear usage condition. Every word earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 simple single-parameter read-only tool, the description is complete: it states what is extracted, when to use it, and the annotation profile covers side effects. Since no output schema exists, listing the exact outputs in the description satisfies the completeness requirement.

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 single parameter 'url' is fully described in the schema with an example, so schema coverage is 100%. The description confirms the URL is a Figma link but adds little beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Extract') and names the exact resource (Figma URL) and outputs (file key, file name, node ID). It clearly differentiates this tool from siblings like get_file_info or search_projects by focusing on parsing URLs rather than querying Figma resources.

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?

It gives an explicit usage condition: 'Use this when a user provides a Figma link instead of a raw file key.' This tells the agent when to invoke it, though it does not name specific alternative tools for raw file keys.

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