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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only mentions that the path is discarded. It does not disclose whether the tool performs network access, validates the URL, returns errors, or has side effects.

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 short and free of padding. Every sentence adds a small piece of information, and it is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 return-value description, no examples, and no required parameters. With nine optional parameters and generic descriptions, an agent cannot reliably know how to invoke the tool or interpret the result.

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 all parameters have schema descriptions, those descriptions are generic and some are unrelated to Figma URL parsing (e.g., city, feed, zone, query). The description does not clarify which of the 9 optional parameters are relevant, and the url parameter description ('normalize or cite') conflicts with the parse purpose.

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 concrete action ('Parse a Figma file URL') and a boundary ('Path discarded'), but it does not say what output is produced or what 'shape' means. This leaves the tool's purpose only partially specified.

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 choose this tool over sibling tools like normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or web-fetch. It does not mention that it is only for Figma file URLs, nor what inputs are inappropriate.

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