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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals only that the path is discarded, but does not clarify whether the tool validates, fetches, returns a normalized result, or how it treats the remaining URL components. 'Parse' remains ambiguous.

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 two short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is appropriately terse, though a line about return behavior would improve structure without harming conciseness.

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 a 9-parameter schema, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too thin. It does not explain what the parse returns, how the other parameters relate to the Figma URL, or what a valid Figma file URL looks like, leaving an agent uncertain about the tool's full behavior.

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 a small clarification that the input is a Figma file URL and that the path is discarded, but it does not meaningfully explain the role of the other eight parameters beyond what the schema already states.

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 that the tool parses a Figma file URL, which is a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling shape tools like github-repo-shape or jira-key-shape, so it misses the top score.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url or browser-url-ok. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and phrase 'Figma file URL'; no conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing are provided.

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