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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the path is discarded, but does not say whether the tool fetches the URL, only checks its shape, what happens on invalid input, or whether all other parameters are ignored. This is too thin for an agent to predict tool behavior reliably.

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 concise and front-loaded: it opens with the core action and resource, then adds the path-discard detail. There is no filler or repetition. It earns high marks for structure, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 generic optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly with confidence. It does not identify the required input, the return value, error behavior, or how this tool relates to similar URL and shape-checking 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?

The schema itself has 100% parameter-description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the Figma-specific context and notes path disposal, but it does not specify which of the nine optional parameters should be provided for a Figma URL shape check. Since none of the parameters are required, this ambiguity is a meaningful gap.

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. This distinguishes it from sibling shape tools like github-repo-shape or jira-key-shape, and the subject matter is unambiguous. However, it does not clarify what 'parse' yields or whether this is strictly a shape/format validation, so the purpose is clear but not fully specified.

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 file URLs, which gives some usage direction. There is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or other URL-related siblings, and no statement of when not to use it.

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