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

The only behavioral disclosure is 'Path discarded', which hints at how input is processed. However, with no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of transparency, and it does not mention side effects, return values, or failure modes. The disclosure is minimal.

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 main description is a single, tightly worded sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, the parameter descriptions below are verbose and irrelevant, which slightly detracts from the overall structure, but the primary description itself is concise.

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?

The description lacks essential context: no mention of output format, expected parameters, or how the parsed URL components are returned. There is no output schema, no annotations, and the parameter descriptions are incoherent, leaving the agent without enough information to correctly invoke the tool.

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 the schema lists descriptions for all 9 parameters, these descriptions are clearly mismatched with the tool's purpose (e.g., 'city' for weather, 'ref' for Git, 'query' for search). They provide meaningless or misleading semantics for a Figma URL parser, making the parameter definitions unhelpful and potentially harmful for an agent.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Parse a Figma file URL' and adds a specific detail about discarding the path. This is specific enough to distinguish it from generic URL tools, though it could be more explicit about output.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools include many similar 'shape' tools (e.g., domain-shape, jira-key-shape), and without any usage direction, an agent cannot reliably decide which tool to invoke.

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