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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals one behavioral trait, that the path is discarded, but it does not say whether the tool validates, fetches, or returns anything, nor how malformed 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 concise and front-loaded: the core action appears first, and the behavioral note is a single additional fragment. It earns a high conciseness score, though the terseness contributes to ambiguity.

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, and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not specify which parameter to provide, what the parse result looks like, or how to handle invalid Figma URLs.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context by indicating that the input is a Figma file URL, which helps map to the `url` parameter, but it does not disambiguate among the nine optional properties or explain why unrelated parameters like `city`, `feed`, and `json` exist.

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 a specific verb and resource, 'Parse a Figma file URL', which clearly identifies the tool's target. The short 'Path discarded' adds a scope detail, though it is somewhat ambiguous about whether this 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 related siblings like `domain-shape`, `normalize-url`, or `github-repo-shape`. The description only states the action and does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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