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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It offers only 'Path discarded,' which is ambiguous and largely repeats what the schema already says for the path parameter. Nothing is said about side effects, return values, or failure behavior, leaving the agent without a clear behavioral model.

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 the main action is front-loaded. 'Path discarded' is terse, but there is no wasted wording.

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?

With nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description needs to identify the meaningful input, expected result, and which fields are irrelevant. It only mentions Figma URL parsing and an ambiguous discard, leaving an agent to infer how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage for parameters is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal context beyond the schema, mainly suggesting the URL parameter is the Figma URL and that path is ignored. It does not clarify which of the other eight parameters are relevant.

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.' The Figma mention distinguishes it from sibling shape tools like github-repo-shape or jira-key-shape. However, 'Path discarded' is ambiguous, so the purpose is slightly undercut.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling tools are referenced. The intended use for Figma file URLs is only implied by the name and description.

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