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

The description does disclose one non-obvious behavior, 'Path discarded,' and the verb 'Parse' suggests a read-only, local operation. With no annotations available, the description still leaves ambiguity about whether the tool validates against a known Figma URL pattern, normalizes the URL, or performs any network access.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, with the main purpose in the first sentence and the scoping detail in the second. It contains no wasted words, though the brevity leaves 'Path discarded' ambiguous.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does not tell the agent what the tool returns, such as a boolean shape-check result or parsed URL parts. The 9-parameter schema contains several fields that seem unrelated to Figma URLs, and the description does not map them to behavior, so the definition is incomplete for confident invocation.

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 even though the description adds little parameter-level detail. The description does clarify that the relevant URL is a Figma file URL and that the path is ignored, but it does not explain the purpose of the many other optional parameters in the schema.

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,' which is distinct from sibling shape tools such as github-repo-shape and jira-key-shape. It also adds one scoping detail, 'Path discarded.' However, it does not say what the parse produces or what shape criteria are checked, so it is clear but not fully explicit.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives like normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or github-repo-shape. The only implied context is Figma URLs, and there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions. An agent must infer selection almost entirely from the tool name.

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