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

The description mentions 'Path discarded' as a behavior, but this is minimal. It does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or what happens with the other parameters. The parameter descriptions, such as 'discarded after the shape check' and 'discarded after the call,' are misleading and undermine transparency about the tool's actual behavior.

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 concise (one sentence), but it lacks structure and does not enumerate or explain the parameters. The sentence is also misleading because the parameter descriptions contradict the stated purpose. Being short does not compensate for the lack of coherent structure.

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 tool has 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how parameters are used, or what constitutes a valid Figma URL. This leaves the agent without essential context 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?

The schema descriptions for parameters like 'ref' (Git ref name), 'city' (City name), and 'feed' (RSS URL) have no relevance to parsing a Figma file URL. While the schema has 100% coverage, the descriptions are mismatched and provide no meaningful semantics for how the parameters relate to the tool's function.

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 'Parse a Figma file URL. Path discarded.' which gives a general sense of the tool's purpose, but it is vague and does not specify what 'shape' means or what the expected output is. The parameter names and descriptions are entirely unrelated to Figma URLs, adding confusion rather than clarity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like normalize-url or domain-shape. The description provides no context for selecting this tool over similar sibling tools, leaving the agent without direction.

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