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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the path is discarded, but gives no indication of whether the tool validates, extracts, normalizes, or returns anything, nor how it handles invalid or non-Figma URLs. This is a significant transparency gap for a parse operation.

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 short, with no filler words. It front-loads the purpose and adds one behavioral note. The fragment 'Path discarded' is a bit terse but not verbose, and the overall length is appropriate for a simple shape-check tool.

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 9 parameters with none required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves too much unspecified. It doesn't explain which parameter contains the Figma URL, what the return value looks like, how the discarded parameters interact, or how the tool is meant to be used among the family of shape tools. The mismatch between the single-purpose description and the broad generic schema makes the tool confusing to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description, giving a baseline of 3. The tool description adds the important context that the URL should be a Figma file URL, which the schema's generic 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' does not convey. However, it doesn't clarify the roles of the other eight parameters or which are relevant, so it doesn't fully compensate for the schema's ambiguity.

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 ('Parse') and resource ('Figma file URL'), making the core action clear and distinguishing it from generic URL tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok. The second sentence adds a scoping constraint, but it doesn't clarify what the parse produces, so it stops short of perfect clarity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool instead of sibling shape/URL tools such as github-repo-shape, domain-shape, or normalize-url. The description doesn't state prerequisites, intended input format, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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