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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it discloses only that 'Path discarded' without explaining whether the tool validates, normalizes, returns a parsed object, or performs a network request. The behavior of the `url` parameter and the fate of the other eight input parameters is left unspecified.

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 short and front-loaded, but the cryptic second sentence 'Path discarded.' reads as under-specification rather than useful brevity. It earns a middle score because there is no wasted prose.

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, no annotations, and 26 sibling tools, the description is too thin for an agent to invoke correctly with confidence. It does not state what the parse result is, which field carries the Figma URL, or how this differs from URL-normalizing siblings.

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 coverage is 100%, the schema contains eight parameters (ref, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) that appear unrelated to a Figma URL parse, and the description does not identify `url` as the relevant parameter or dismiss the others. The 'Path discarded' phrase conflicts with the schema's `path` parameter description ('File path to check'), making invocation ambiguous.

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'), which is enough to distinguish this from sibling tools like github-repo-shape or jira-key-shape. The trailing 'Path discarded.' is vague, but it does not obscure the core purpose.

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 figma-url-shape over alternatives such as normalize-url or browser-url-ok. The description only implies a Figma URL input; it provides no conditions, exclusions, or prerequisite context.

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