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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It does disclose one concrete trait — the path is discarded — but it never says whether parsing involves network access, what happens with a non-Figma URL, or that the operation is side-effect-free. The verb 'parse' only weakly implies read-only 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?

It is a visibly lean 8-word definition with the main verb and resource front-loaded in the first sentence. The second clause, 'Path discarded.', is a grammatically awkward fragment that the reader must mentally expand, which costs it a point on 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?

For a tool with nine parameters, none required, no output schema, and no annotations, this is insufficient. The agent cannot determine which parameter carries the Figma URL (url versus host or path), what the tool returns after discarding the path, or how malformed inputs are handled. The sibling/gensen indirect helps, but the description itself must carry more weight.

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 the baseline is 3: each of the nine parameters already carries its own meaning (e.g., 'url': HTTPS URL to normalize or cite). The description adds only the hint that the Figma URL is a shape input, but does not map which of the nine parameters it actually consumes, nor which parameters are 'discarded'.

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 names a specific verb and resource — parse a Figma file URL — which distinguishes it among the sibling shape tools (github-repo-shape, jira-key-shape, wiki-title-ok). It loses a point because the second sentence, 'Path discarded.', is an ambiguous fragment that leaves whether the tool validates URL shape or returns a parsed component.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool over normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or the other *-shape siblings, and states no exclusions or prerequisites. The only cue is the tool name itself, which is at best an implied usage.

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