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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It states that path is discarded, but it does not say what 'parse' returns, whether any network request is made, or how invalid Figma URLs are handled. Since there is no output schema, the agent is left without key behavioral details.

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 only two short sentences with no filler, and the main purpose is front-loaded. 'Path discarded' is terse and slightly ambiguous, but it still earns its place as a useful behavioral note.

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?

For a tool with nine optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a large sibling set, the description is too sparse. It does not state the return value, which parameter to use, or failure behavior, and it leaves sibling differentiation mostly to the tool name.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the essential fact that the expected resource is a Figma file URL, which the generic `url` schema description does not convey. However, it does not clarify which of the nine optional parameters should actually be passed beyond implying `url` and saying `path` is discarded.

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 clearly separates it from sibling shape-checkers like github-repo-shape, jira-key-shape, and domain-shape. The 'Path discarded' fragment is cryptic, 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?

The phrase 'Parse a Figma file URL' implies the trigger for using this tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It also does not compare against closely related siblings such as normalize-url or browser-url-ok, so an agent must infer the boundary from the tool name.

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