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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the input is parsed and the path is discarded, implying a non-destructive read-only operation. However, it does not state what the tool returns, how invalid URLs are handled, or whether any other side effects occur.

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 concise and front-loaded with no wasted words. However, it is so terse that it under-specifies the tool's behavior and parameters, crossing from efficient conciseness into incompleteness.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotations, and the input schema includes nine loosely related parameters. The description does not tell the agent what output to expect, which parameter to provide, or how this tool relates to the many sibling URL/shape tools, leaving significant gaps.

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 little beyond the schema: 'Path discarded' echoes the path parameter's existing schema description and does not clarify which parameter should hold the Figma URL.

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 concrete action ('Parse') and a specific resource ('a Figma file URL'), and adds a meaningful qualifier ('Path discarded'). It is clear about the tool's core function, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling URL/shape tools or state the exact output form.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url, domain-shape, or file-path-ok. There is no mention of prerequisites, intended use cases, or exclusions.

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