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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses only that the path is discarded, but says nothing about whether the tool validates, normalizes, fetches, or returns a result, or whether it has side effects.

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-loads the core action in the first sentence. The second sentence is terse and relevant, but its ambiguity slightly weakens the overall 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?

For a tool with nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not say which parameter to populate, what the tool returns, or what qualifies as a valid Figma URL shape.

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%, which sets a baseline of 3. The description does not explicitly map the Figma URL to the `url` parameter, leaving nine optional properties with no required parameters, though the schema descriptions are individually clear.

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 and resource: 'Parse a Figma file URL', which distinguishes it from sibling shape tools like github-repo-shape and jira-key-shape. 'Path discarded' adds a scope note but is ambiguous about whether it refers to the URL path or the `path` parameter.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url or browser-url-ok. There are no exclusions, no context, and no mention of sibling tools.

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