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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose one non-obvious behavior: the path is discarded. However, it does not state whether the operation is purely local, what happens on invalid/non-Figma URLs, or what the return value looks like.

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, and the purpose is front-loaded. The phrase 'Path discarded' is terse and slightly ambiguous, but 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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description never explains the return value, error behavior, or parameter selection among nine optional fields. An agent could guess it takes a URL, but it cannot tell what result to expect or how to invoke it reliably.

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 and the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds a small amount of meaning by narrowing the URL to Figma file URLs, but it does not clarify which of the nine optional parameters to supply or how the extras are treated.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Parse') and a specific resource ('Figma file URL'), so an agent can tell it apart from sibling shape tools like github-repo-shape or jira-key-shape. The second sentence adds a concrete boundary: the path is discarded.

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 gives a clear use context: when a Figma file URL needs to be parsed. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives among the URL-related siblings, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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