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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses only that the path is discarded; it does not say whether the operation is read-only, what the parse result looks like, or what happens for invalid/non-Figma URLs. 'Path discarded' is also ambiguous: it could mean the url path or the path parameter.

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 behavioral caveat is front-loaded. It borders on under-specified, but for what it contains, 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 nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description alone must enable correct invocation. It fails to specify the relevant input field, expected return, or failure behavior, leaving the agent to guess from the name and generic property descriptions.

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 no parameter-specific meaning: it never identifies which of the nine optional fields (presumably url) is the Figma URL, and 'Path discarded' only echoes the path property's existing 'discarded' note.

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') and adds 'Path discarded' as a distinguishing behavior, so an agent can separate it from generic URL tools. It loses the fifth point because it never says what 'parse' returns or how this relates to the 'shape' in the tool name.

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 only that a Figma file URL is involved, but it gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like normalize-url, domain-shape, or browser-url-ok. It also lacks prerequisites, exclusions, or any hint about which of the nine optional fields is the intended input.

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