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

With no annotations, the description is the only disclosure and it does not state side effects, network access, output format, or error behavior. 'Path discarded' is the sole behavioral hint and is too ambiguous to inform an agent.

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 short and has no fluff, but the second sentence 'Path discarded' is unclear and raises questions rather than adding value. It is concise at the expense of clarity.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotations, no description of the expected input parameter beyond the mismatched schema, and no edge-case or error context. For a 9-parameter optional schema, the description is far from complete.

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 every parameter has a description, the descriptions are generic and mismatched: 'url' is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' rather than a Figma file URL, and unrelated params like 'city', 'feed', and 'zone' are included. No required parameter or guidance on which field to populate is given.

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?

States a specific action/resource ('Parse a Figma file URL'), but 'Path discarded' is vague and the expected result (shape, components, validity) is not stated. The name 'figma-url-shape' suggests validation/return of shape, which the description does not make explicit.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this over the many URL-related siblings (browser-url-ok, normalize-url, web-fetch), and no conditions or prerequisites are given. The need to parse a Figma URL is only implied by the purpose.

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