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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only discloses that the path is discarded. It does not state whether the tool performs network access, returns a boolean or parsed object, errors on invalid URLs, or has other side effects.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the second sentence adds a meaningful constraint. Every word earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain expected inputs, outputs, and edge cases. It does not specify which parameter should contain the Figma URL, what a valid result looks like, or what happens with malformed or non-Figma URLs, leaving a nine-parameter optional schema under-explained.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents each parameter. The description adds little beyond naming the target as a Figma file URL and noting that path is discarded, which is the expected baseline when schema descriptions are complete.

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 resource (Figma file URL) and action (parse), and the phrase "Path discarded" adds a scoping detail. It is distinguishable from sibling shape/URL tools, though it leaves what "parse" returns or validates implicit.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like normalize-url, domain-shape, or github-repo-shape. The intended context is only implied by the tool name and the phrase "Figma file URL."

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