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 discloses that the path is discarded. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, or whether any network access occurs. The phrase 'Path discarded' is also ambiguous against the schema's 'path' property described as 'File path to check.'

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 core action before the 'Path discarded' note. There is no filler, and every word earns its place, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing important behavioral and usage details.

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?

Given nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse for reliable invocation. It does not say what the tool returns, which parameter to supply, or that this is a local validation rather than a network operation. Only the path-discarded trait is conveyed.

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 a small hint that path is ignored, but it does not clarify which of the nine optional parameters actually matter for this tool or how the unrelated fields are treated. This leaves the parameter mapping largely to inference.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' This distinguishes it from generic URL tools and other domain-shape siblings. The 'Path discarded' note adds scoping, though it does not explicitly say the tool validates or returns a shape-check result.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or the other shape tools. No alternatives are named, and no exclusions are stated. The intended use is only implied by the resource name.

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