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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Path discarded' is the only behavioral trait disclosed; the description does not mention whether the tool validates, fetches, returns a normalized URL, or reports errors. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety context.

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, with two short sentences and no filler. 'Parse a Figma file URL' is front-loaded and directly names the core action. The brevity is partly a result of under-specification, but as far as conciseness itself, it is efficient.

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 output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too thin to be complete. It does not explain the return value, what 'shape' means, which single input is relevant, or why the other parameters exist. The agent is left guessing about invocation semantics.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not map to any specific parameter. The schema's 'url' property is described generically as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite,' not as a Figma URL, and the 'path' property refers to a file path, making 'Path discarded' ambiguous. With nine optional parameters and no required fields, the agent cannot confidently determine which parameter to pass.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' This clearly identifies the tool's domain and distinguishes it from sibling URL tools like normalize-url, browser-url-ok, and web-fetch, which do not target Figma URLs specifically. The added 'Path discarded' hint gives a concrete behavior.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url or browser-url-ok. It never explains conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites, so an agent cannot determine whether to pick this tool over a sibling.

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