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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the path is discarded, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, or how malformed URLs are handled.

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 short sentences with no filler; purpose is front-loaded. Slightly cryptic because 'Path discarded' is ambiguous, but it earns its place as a behavioral note.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and nine parameters, the description omits expected return value, input parameter mapping, and error/edge-case behavior. It is too sparse for an agent to invoke confidently.

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 baseline is 3. The description's 'Path discarded' adds little beyond the existing path parameter description, and it does not clarify which of the nine parameters is the actual Figma URL input.

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 identifies a specific operation and object: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' This distinguishes it from sibling shape tools like github-repo-shape or jira-key-shape. It is slightly vague about what 'parse' returns (validation vs extraction), which keeps it from a 5.

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 usage: when a Figma file URL needs parsing. It names no alternative tools or exclusion conditions, so an agent cannot tell when to prefer this over normalize-url or browser-url-ok.

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