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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only mentions that the path is discarded, which is largely redundant with the schema's path property, and says nothing about whether the operation is local, read-only, what it returns, or how invalid URLs 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, but 'Path discarded' is ambiguous and adds little value. It is under-specified rather than effectively concise, and the second sentence does not meaningfully earn 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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and nine optional parameters, the description is far too incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, which parameters are actually used, or how to handle invalid or non-Figma URLs, leaving the agent unable to invoke it confidently.

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 has 100% parameter coverage, but the description adds meaning by indicating that the relevant input is specifically a Figma file URL, sharpening the generic 'url' property description. It also reinforces that the path input is discarded, though this is partially redundant with the schema.

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 ('a Figma file URL') and an action ('Parse'), which helps distinguish it from generic URL or sibling shape tools. However, it does not state what the parse produces or what 'shape' means, and 'Path discarded' is cryptic rather than clarifying.

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 sibling tools like normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or github-repo-shape. The intended selection criteria must be inferred from the tool name alone.

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