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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one behavior ('Path discarded') but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what return value is produced, or how failures are handled.

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 very short and front-loaded, with no filler. The second sentence 'Path discarded.' is a bit fragmentary but still economical.

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?

The tool has nine optional parameters, no required parameters, and no output schema, so an agent needs more context about expected inputs and return values. The description only identifies the general input kind and one discarded component, leaving the invocation largely underspecified.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema mostly carries parameter meaning. The description adds the 'Figma' qualifier and the path-discarding behavior, but it does not clarify which of the nine optional parameters are relevant or should be supplied.

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 clear verb and resource ('Parse a Figma file URL'), which identifies what the tool operates on. It is distinguishable from sibling shape tools like github-repo-shape and jira-key-shape, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 the tool should be used when a Figma file URL needs parsing, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions. It does not mention how this relates to sibling tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok.

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