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, but it only says 'Path discarded.' It does not state whether the tool makes network calls, validates or transforms the URL, what it returns, how it handles invalid input, or why non-URL parameters are accepted and ignored.

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; the main action appears in the first sentence. There is no unnecessary wording. However, it is so terse that some important context is missing, so it is strong on conciseness but not exemplary for structure.

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, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. An agent is not told what the tool returns, which parameter is primary, how to distinguish valid from invalid Figma URLs, or why the schema accepts city, feed, json, zone, and query. The definition is not sufficient for reliable invocation.

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 real value beyond the schema and even creates ambiguity: 'Path discarded' could relate to the URL path, but the schema defines a separate 'path' parameter 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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL.' This is enough to distinguish it from siblings like domain-shape or github-repo-shape by target resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from normalize-url or browser-url-ok, and 'Path discarded' is ambiguous.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or other shape-check tools. There are no exclusions, conditions, or context that help an agent decide between this and a sibling.

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