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

The description discloses one behavioral trait: 'Path discarded.' With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the returned value looks like, what validation rules apply, or how invalid URLs are handled.

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-loaded: the core action appears first, followed by the relevant caveat. Every word earns its place. It is slightly under-specified, but for conciseness and structure this is effective.

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 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too sparse for reliable invocation. It does not explain what a successful parse returns, what 'shape' checking entails, which parameter matters, or what to do with the discarded path. An agent would need to infer too much.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaningful parameter-level detail beyond the schema, and it does not clarify which of the 9 parameters should be used as the Figma URL, though 'url' is the obvious candidate. No contradiction or new param insight is provided.

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.' It clearly identifies what the tool operates on and adds a concrete detail that the path is discarded. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok, so it stops short of a 5.

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 github-repo-shape, jira-key-shape, or normalize-url. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and the phrase 'Figma file URL.' No 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.