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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. The only disclosed behavioral trait is 'Path discarded,' which tells the agent the path component is ignored. It does not mention what the parse returns, how invalid Figma URLs are handled, whether any normalization occurs, or confirm the operation is read-only.

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 very concise and front-loaded: 'Parse a Figma file URL' immediately communicates the core purpose. 'Path discarded' is an additional behavioral note with no wasted words. It is under-specified but not verbose.

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 output schema, and no annotations, so the description needed to explain which parameter to use and what the outcome looks like. It does neither. The agent must infer that 'url' is the relevant input and guess at the return behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some meaning by clarifying that the URL should be a Figma file URL, which the generic schema description for 'url' does not convey. However, it does not identify which of the nine optional parameters to populate, and several schema properties are unrelated to Figma URLs.

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 shape tools like github-repo-shape or jira-key-shape. However, 'parse' is somewhat ambiguous because it doesn't state whether the tool validates, normalizes, or extracts components; 'Path discarded' adds detail but not full clarity.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is present. The description does not name alternatives or explain conditions for selecting this tool over similar URL/shape tools; the agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.

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