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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It discloses only that the path is discarded, but says nothing about whether the URL is fetched, what happens for invalid URLs, whether other parameters are ignored, or what the tool returns. The single behavioral claim is helpful but far from sufficient.

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 short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters and no annotations. It is not bloated, but the terseness comes at the cost of usefulness.

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 complexity of a 9-parameter, fully optional schema, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It does not explain what a shape-check result looks like, which parameter holds the Figma URL, or what 'Path discarded' means in practice. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool 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 even without parameter details in the description. The description adds only the ambiguous 'Path discarded', which does not clarify which of the 9 parameters should be provided, and it sits awkwardly next to the schema's `path` parameter described as 'File path to check'.

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 identifies a specific action ('Parse') and a specific resource ('a Figma file URL'), which distinguishes it from siblings like github-repo-shape or normalize-url. However, it never defines what 'shape' means or what the result of parsing is, and the cryptic 'Path discarded' leaves room for confusion.

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 versus normalize-url, domain-shape, or other URL/shape siblings. No alternatives are named, no exclusions are stated, and no context is given about which kind of input calls for this tool.

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