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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses one trait ('Path discarded') but does not say whether this tool makes network calls, returns a boolean or shape, has side effects, or what constitutes a valid Figma URL.

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 text is very short and front-loaded, but the second sentence, 'Path discarded,' is cryptic and does not clearly earn its place. It may mislead an agent into thinking the 'path' parameter is the primary input.

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 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this two-sentence description is insufficient. It omits the return contract, validation criteria, and the role of the unrelated-looking parameters, so an agent cannot reliably invoke it correctly.

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 no parameter-level detail and, given 9 optional parameters, does not indicate which field should carry the Figma URL or how the other parameters are meant to be used.

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 action ('Parse') and target resource ('Figma file URL'), which distinguishes it from sibling shape tools such as github-repo-shape or jira-key-shape. However, it does not state what the parse result looks like, and 'Path discarded' is ambiguous, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus normalize-url, browser-url-ok, domain-shape, or other URL-related siblings. The only usage cue is implicit in the tool name and the phrase 'Figma file URL'.

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