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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses 'Path discarded' but does not explain whether the tool performs network access, validates Figma URL structure, returns a normalized form, or has any side effects. It also does not mention the output format, which leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's behavior beyond the single discard hint.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences with no filler words. The key action ('Parse a Figma file URL') is front-loaded, and the discard behavior is stated separately. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices necessary detail for the tool's multi-parameter schema, making it less effective than a slightly longer, more structured description would be.

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 the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 27 sibling tools, the description is far from complete. It only addresses the URL parsing aspect and ignores the purpose of the other parameters, which are entirely undocumented from the tool's perspective. An agent cannot confidently select and invoke this tool correctly without additional context.

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 description adds minimal parameter meaning and creates confusion. It clarifies that 'url' should be a Figma file URL, which the schema does not state, but the phrase 'Path discarded' conflicts with the schema's description of the 'path' parameter ('File path to check; discarded after the check'). The description gives no insight into the other eight parameters, so an agent cannot determine which ones are relevant for the 'Figma file URL' task.

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 uses the specific verb 'Parse' with the resource 'Figma file URL', which clearly distinguishes this tool from generic URL tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok. However, the term 'parse' is somewhat vague—it is not clear whether the tool validates, extracts components, or normalizes the URL. The phrase 'Path discarded' adds a behavioral hint but also introduces ambiguity about whether it refers to the URL path or the 'path' parameter.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus the many sibling URL-shape tools (domain-shape, file-path-ok, github-repo-shape, etc.). The statement 'Parse a Figma file URL' implies a specific use case, but it does not mention any exclusions or alternatives. An agent would struggle to decide between figma-url-shape and normalize-url based solely on this description.

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