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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only reveals that the path is discarded; it does not explain whether parsing validates, extracts, mutates, what the return value looks like, or how invalid URLs are handled. For a 9-parameter tool, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 short and front-loads the essential purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds a behavioral detail, though its exact referent is ambiguous, which prevents a 5.

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 high complexity: 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is only one sentence. Missing parameter-selection guidance, behavior details, and return information make it under-specified for reliable autonomous use.

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 little beyond the schema and does not identify which of the 9 optional parameters is the Figma URL, though the `url` parameter is inferable from its name. The 'Path discarded' note is largely redundant with the `path` parameter's own schema description.

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 ('Parse') and resource ('a Figma file URL'), which distinguishes it from sibling shape tools like github-repo-shape or jira-key-shape. The second clause 'Path discarded' is somewhat ambiguous, so it does not earn a 5, but the core purpose is clear.

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 this tool is for Figma URLs, but it never explicitly states when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, leaving usage context mostly implicit.

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