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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the path is discarded, which is a minor detail. It does not mention whether the tool makes network calls, returns validation results, has side effects, or requires authentication. For a tool with 9 parameters and no safety hints, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and includes a behavioral note. While it is efficient, it is borderline under-specified; however, for the dimension of conciseness and structure, it earns a high score because every word contributes. The 'Path discarded' clause is directly relevant to the tool's behavior.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how it validates a Figma URL, what constitutes a valid shape, or any error handling. An agent cannot reliably determine the expected output or side effects from this description alone. This is a serious deficiency for a tool with such a broad parameter set.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each of the 9 parameters having a clear description in the input schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already documents each field. According to the baseline, when coverage is high, a score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to repeat schema details but also does not add extra context about how parameters relate to the Figma URL parsing.

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 is clear about what it targets, and the additional note 'Path discarded' gives a hint of its behavior. However, it does not distinguish it from sibling shape-check tools like github-repo-shape or jira-key-shape, and 'parse' is slightly vague regarding the actual validation or extraction logic.

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. Sibling tools like normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or domain-shape exist, but the description does not mention any selection criteria, exclusions, or context where this tool is preferred. An agent would have to infer the use case from the name alone.

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