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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one behavior, that the path is discarded, but it does not say whether the URL is validated, how the URL and other parameters interact, what is returned, or whether the operation is read-only.

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 the main action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is cryptic but not verbose; it is compact enough that an agent can grasp the tool's core purpose quickly.

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 annotations, and no output schema, this description is too thin. It does not explain which parameter is the Figma URL, what a successful parse returns, or what failure looks like, so an agent is left with significant ambiguity.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is met; the schemas already document each parameter. The description adds no new parameter meaning except 'Path discarded', which merely restates what the path parameter's schema already says.

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: it parses a Figma file URL. This is enough to distinguish the tool from generic URL tools like normalize-url by the target resource, though it does not say what 'shape' means or what the parse result is.

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?

It implies the tool should be used when a Figma file URL needs to be parsed or shape-checked, but it gives no explicit conditions, exclusions, or pointer to sibling tools such as normalize-url or browser-url-ok. No prerequisites are mentioned.

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