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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the path is discarded; it does not state whether the parse is local, whether it validates against Figma, what it returns, or how invalid 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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler and the main purpose is front-loaded. The path-discard note is a meaningful behavioral detail, though the brevity borders on under-specification.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete: it does not explain what 'shape' means, what the return value is, which parameters are required, or how errors are reported. The broad 9-parameter schema makes this omission more costly.

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. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, mainly confirming that path is discarded, but it does not map the purpose to the relevant parameter, especially since the schema's url description says 'normalize or cite' rather than 'parse Figma file 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 names a specific resource ('Figma file URL') and a specific action ('Parse'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like github-repo-shape or jira-key-shape. The additional 'Path discarded' note adds a concrete behavioral detail, though it stops short of defining the expected output shape.

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 when to use the tool: when given a Figma file URL. However, it offers no explicit alternatives, no when-not-to-use guidance, and does not differentiate itself from closely related URL tools such as 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.