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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states 'Path discarded' and gives no details about whether this is a pure local parse, what happens to the URL, what output is produced, or any side effects. The behavior is minimally implied but not meaningfully disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded: the primary action comes first, and 'Path discarded' is a short, meaningful qualifier. It does not waste words, though the brevity contributes to under-specification in other dimensions.

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 9 parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is far too thin. It does not explain how to pass the Figma URL, what a valid Figma URL shape is, what the tool returns, or how it relates to sibling URL tools.

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 the Figma-specific context missing from the generic `url` parameter description, but it still does not explicitly identify which of the 9 parameters carries the Figma URL, leaving the agent to infer `url` from the tool name.

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 action, 'Parse a Figma file URL', which clearly identifies the tool's resource and distinguishes it from sibling shape tools like github-repo-shape or jira-key-shape. The additional 'Path discarded' provides useful scope, though it does not explicitly say what the parse result is.

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 about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or file-path-ok. The Figma mention implies the intended use case, but explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing are absent.

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