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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the path is discarded; it does not say whether the tool returns a boolean, parsed components, or an error, nor whether it is read-only or validates the URL. With nine parameters and no output schema, the behavioral transparency is insufficient.

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 just two short sentences and is front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff or redundant content. The phrase 'Path discarded' is terse but does convey an important limitation.

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 high parameter count (9), no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a two-sentence description is not enough for an agent to invoke the tool reliably. It does not specify the return format, which parameter is required for the Figma URL, or how this tool differs from other URL/shape tools. The agent would likely need to infer or probe.

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 each parameter has some description, which meets the baseline. However, several parameter descriptions are generic and not tailored to Figma URL parsing (e.g., url is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite'). The main description does help by indicating that the relevant input is a Figma file URL and that the path is discarded, but it does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Parse') and a specific resource ('a Figma file URL'), which allows an agent to distinguish it from generic URL tools and other shape-check tools. 'Path discarded' adds a scope constraint, though it is somewhat cryptic. The tool name reinforces the shape-check purpose.

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 instead of related siblings like normalize-url, playwright-url-ok, github-repo-shape, or domain-shape. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions under which this tool is preferred. Usage is left entirely to inference from the name.

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