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

With no annotations, the description bears the burden of disclosing behavior. It does add a meaningful behavioral detail ('Path discarded'), but it leaves other important aspects unstated, such as whether the tool validates, normalizes, extracts, or only checks shape, and what it returns.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the 'Path discarded' caveat is separated cleanly.

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 nine optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling shape/URL tools, the description is too sparse. It leaves the agent guessing which parameter to populate, what the tool returns, and how this tool differs from similar URL-related siblings.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a useful constraint by clarifying that the URL in question should be a Figma file URL, but it does not map any of the nine schema parameters or indicate which one carries the Figma URL.

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 operation ('Parse') on a specific resource ('Figma file URL'), so the tool's core purpose is clear. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling URL/shape tools, but the Figma-specific resource is enough to narrow the agent's selection.

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 is for Figma file URLs, but it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over sibling tools like normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or the other *_shape tools. The intended use case must be inferred rather than stated.

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