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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that a 'path' is discarded, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, whether authentication is needed, or what happens for malformed URLs. This is too thin for a parse tool.

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 and front-loaded: the core purpose appears first_temp. No words are wastedikuha. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices necessary context, making it concise rather than fully structured.

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?

Given 10 optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, this description is inadequate. It does not tell the agent which parameter to populate, what the output looks like, or what 'path discarded' refers to. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly with only the provided text.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. Each parameter has some description, but the description does not explicitly connect 'Figma file URL' to the `url` parameter, and the `path` parameter's schema meaning ('File path to check; no disk access') seems unrelated to the description's 'Path discarded.' The schema provides basic semantics, but the description adds little mapping clarity.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' This distinguishes it from sibling shape tools like github-repo-shape or domain-shape by targeting Figma files. However, 'Path discarded' is ambiguous about which path and what the parse result is.

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 use when a Figma URL needs parsing but gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives like normalize-url or browser-url-ok. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context cues, leaving the agent to infer the intended use case.

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