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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that the path is discarded, which is a minor behavior. It does not explain whether the URL is mutated, what format the output takes, whether network access is involved, or any side effects. This is minimal disclosure for a tool that appears to both parse and validate.

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 short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the discarded-path detail is clear. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely incomplete. It gives no indication of what the tool returns, how to combine parameters, or what 'parse' means in practice. The parameters include many unrelated fields (city, feed, zone, json) that seem inconsistent with a Figma URL parser, and the description does nothing to resolve that ambiguity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about how parameters like 'city', 'feed', or 'zone' relate to parsing a Figma URL, which is puzzling. However, since the schema fully describes each parameter, the baseline of 3 applies; the description contributes nothing beyond it.

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 parses a Figma file URL, which is specific and matches the tool name. The 'Path discarded' note adds a small detail. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling URL tools like 'normalize-url' or 'browser-url-ok', so it's not a 5.

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. With 28 sibling tools including several URL-related ones, an agent has no indication of when 'figma-url-shape' is preferred. No context about prerequisites, limitations, or excluded scenarios.

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