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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says the path is discarded; it does not state whether the tool performs network access, what it returns, whether it validates in addition to parsing, or what side effects might exist.

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-loads the core purpose with no wasted words. The second sentence is terse and somewhat ambiguous, but it still communicates a distinct behavioral detail.

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 large optional schema, complete lack of annotations, and no output schema, this description is too thin. It fails to explain how the Figma URL should be supplied, what 'shape' checking entails, or what response format the agent should expect.

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?

Although the schema covers 100% of the parameters, the description does not clarify which of the nine optional parameters is the Figma URL or how they relate to the tool. The phrase 'Path discarded' is ambiguous against the schema's 'path' parameter, which is described as 'File path to check; no disk access'.

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 clear verb ('parse') and a specific resource ('Figma file URL'), which distinguishes it from generic URL tools like normalize-url. However, it stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from other sibling shape-checkers such as github-repo-shape or jira-key-shape.

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 mention of 'Figma file URL' implies the tool is for Figma URLs, giving some usage context. But there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over sibling shape/check tools, nor any exclusions or alternative routing.

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